Mission: Small Business

We need your help. Please click on this link below and vote for Total Broadcasting Service. Please do it now, before 4pm today, Saturday, June 30.



We’re a small business seeking a $250k grant from LivingSocial.com and Chase Bank. We would use the funds to hire people and grow our business.

Please take the time. It’s only about 60 seconds, tops. And remember, just clicking the link isn’t a vote. You have to actually type in Total Broadcasting Service and click vote when our name comes up after the search.

Thank you for doing this.


Michael Schuett

Total Broadcasting Service

author: MSchuettBlahblahblah

Wisdom and Fairness of Health Care Law in Question

Official 2005 photo of Chief Justice John G. R...

Chief Justice John G. Roberts (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The Supreme Court says the Federal Government cannot mandate that Americans buy health insurance denying the Obama Administrations claim that such a mandate was allowed under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Unfortunately for those who opposed the law, including yours truly, the Court ruled that the Federal Government was authorized to tax those without health insurance. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the decision saying,‘‘Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness,’’. I’ll surprise my Conservative friends by stating, grudgingly, that I think Roberts is right. To disagree would impose undeniable limits on what our government can choose to tax. Since the adoption of the 16th Amendment creating the income tax, Congress has had the power to determine how and where taxes should be imposed. To impose a limit would render the Federal Government essentially impotent in its ability to pay for itself. “The law”, Roberts wrote, “makes going without insurance just another thing the Government taxes, like buying gasoline or earning income. And if the mandate is in effect just a tax hike on certain taxpayers who do not have health insurance, it may be within Congress’s constitutional power to tax.”

Don’t misunderstand me, I’m not happy about this. And I admit I’d never thought of the individual mandate in Obamacare as a tax and as such legal. Though clearly I and every American with an IQ above that of a Banana Slug knew in fact it was a tax. Part of the reason I didn’t think of it as a tax is because President Obama and the Democratic Congress that passed this nearly 3000-page law repeatedly said “it wasn’t a tax”. However, in arguments before the High Court the President’s Solicitor General repeatedly made clear the penalty for failing to have health insurance WAS a tax, and thus Constitutional an argument they won today.

English: Anthony Kennedy, Associate Justice of...

Anthony Kennedy, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States

Justice Anthony Kennedy read the dissenting opinion and called the health care law, “invalid in its entirety”. He was joined in dissent by Justices Thomas, Scalia, and Alito. At the time of this writing their opinion and reasons for it are not available for reading or quoting.

With the Constitutionality of Obamacare now settled, and it is settled so those who oppose it can quit with  any whining; we must now revisit the law’s wisdom and fairness which Roberts pointed out the Court is not empowered to question. It still remains a bad law which does harm to the cause for its creation in the first place. The need for something like Obamacare came about because of the high cost of health care. Some would say the law was necessary because of the high cost of health insurance and the approximately 30-million Americans who are not covered by insurance. But insurance is expensive because health care is expensive. Those who are uninsured are uninsured because that can’t afford insurance. So, once again the problem is the cost of health care. Hello?

Obamacare’s only step toward controlling costs is to limit and regulate care. Determinations as to who and what care will be provided is, in large part, going to fall to government bureaucrats. How’s the wisdom and fairness in that?

Since the TAX for not having health insurance is well below the cost of the premium many, if not most, people and businesses will choose to pay the tax and drop coverage. Under Obamacare the TAX for businesses not providing health insurance coverage for their employees is $2500. With a fiduciary responsibility to stock holders, you have to ask yourself what is the incentive for anyone managing a business to carry insurance?  The penalty/tax for individuals not covered is as follows:
$95 in 2014, $325 in 2015, and $695 in 2016. Under Obamacare insurance companies are no longer able to deny coverage to a person seeking coverage based on pre-existing conditions. So, why pay for health insurance if you’re healthy. Why not pay the tax until such time as you get sick and then buy insurance? Financially, it’s the logical thing to do.

The end result of the High Court’s ruling is a law takes effect that will drive more people and businesses away from health care coverage, which will drive up insurance prices, which inevitably will drive more and more people and businesses away from paying for coverage. In the end insurance companies will no longer have a viable product that is affordable for anyone but the super rich. The burden of paying for Americans health coverage will fall on the already overburdened Federal Government. The added deficit spending will weaken the American dollar against world currency, as it already has, which will contribute to massive inflation, which will ultimately bring down the economy however strong or weak the economy happens to be. It’s a recipe for disaster.

The Supreme Court validated the Congress’ ability to tax. Sad but true. Fortunately, the disaster scenario we can all expect with the unfolding of Obamacare can be averted. As I wrote in a previous blog, Obama can’t Win Healthcare Test, winning the High Court’s decision will only inspire Republicans to vote Obama and Democrats out of office this November. Roberts has awakened a sleeping bear. The American people will not likely stand for the implementation of Obamacare without a fight. GOP Presidential candidate Mitt Romney‘s promise to repeal it will undoubtedly bring many who were on the fence about him to his corner. Senate and House candidates who continue to stand up against the new law will receive the money and support necessary to put the GOP in control of the Congress. Even the more liberal media outlets like CNN, MSNBC, and the New York Times admit polls show more than 70% of Americans don’t like Obamacare.

Mitt Romney, former governor of Massachusetts,...

Mitt Romney

Romney and Republican Congressional candidates need to make sure they don’t forget the aspects of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that are good and that people like. Their challenge will be to figure out how to pay for guaranteed coverage for those with pre-existing conditions; the guarantee that you won’t be dropped by your insurance company if you get sick; the ability to keep adult kids on their parents insurance plans (though does it really have to be until age 26? I mean, I love my kids, but I expect them to stand on their own at a certain point. 1 or 2 years after normal age of leaving college, 24, seems reasonable to me).

My hope is the Supreme Court’s ruling today wakes up the American people and helps them understand the responsibility they alone hold. If your Congressman votes for a law you oppose, or an excessive tax it’s up to you to vote him out of office.  The High Court is holding YOU accountable. YOU have to hold your legislators accountable.

Thanks for visiting. Comments are encouraged.

If you like this blog we think you’ll like others we write. We humbly ask that you Click Follow Blog by Email at the top left on this page. Thank you. 

Obama and the Trail of Tears

John Marshall has made his decision; let him enforce it now if he can.” ~President Andrew Jackson 1832

English: Andrew Jackson - 7 th President of th...

Andrew Jackson – 7 th President of the United States (1829–1837)

Not since President Andrew Jackson’s fight with the Cherokee Indian Tribe has a President so boldly defied the dictates of the Supreme Court. President Barrack Obama is holding himself above the Court and the Constitution of the United States in the case of Arizona vs United States, and immigration law in the United States.

English: United States Supreme Court building ...

United States Supreme Court building

Yesterday the Justices ruled unanimously that Arizona’s 2-year-old immigration law, SB 1070, allowed local law enforcement to inquire and investigate the legal residency status of an individual being held on suspicion of a crime. This is the heart of the law which the Obama Administration tried to have killed. They didn’t want local police and Sheriff’s departments picking up the phone and calling Federal officials asking them to come pick up an illegal alien they have in custody. They didn’t want to have to do what Federal law requires, deport the law breakers.

English: President Barack Obama leaves the Dip...

Like Andrew Jackson, Obama heard the Court and has figuratively given them his middle finger. Within hours of the Courts ruling the Obama Justice Department established a toll-free 800 hotline phone number and a website solely for the purpose of ferreting out any alleged racial profiling conducted by Arizona Law Enforcement. The Justice Department wants to burden our courts, our tax payers and the good people of Arizona with as much trouble as possible for having the audacity to actually enforce the law. It’s not hard, in fact its easy, to imagine Hispanics in Arizona being encouraged by Obama representatives to call the hotline and falsely report incidents of civil rights violations by Arizona police.

Also yesterday, Homeland Security Director Janet Napolitano

English: Janet Napolitano is sworn in as the t...

Janet Napolitano United States Secretary of Homeland Security

announced orders that bar ICE (Immigration Customs Enforcement) agents from cooperating with Arizona law enforcement in their inquiries into a criminal detainees legal residence status. In essence, in 49 other states police holding a jaywalker or a murderer can type a suspects name into a Federal database to check on outstanding warrants, past criminal history, and legal immigration status of a suspect being held in connection with a crime against local, or state law. But not in Arizona. That database report will not provide Arizona officials with the suspect’s legal residency status. So despite the Supreme Court’s Monday ruling that Arizona law enforcement can ask for a criminal suspect’s legal right to be in this country the Obama Administration chooses not to enforce that law.

Not since Andrew Jackson’s forced evacuation of Cherokee Indians from Georgia and other Southern states spawned the Trail of Tears has a President so willfully failed in his Presidential oath to “faithfully enforce and protect the Constitution of the United States” and its laws. Gold was discovered on Cherokee land in Western Georgia in the 1820s and the inconvenience of having native people inhabiting the land was problematic for gold seeking Georgians, Jackson, and the United States Congress. So in 1830 Congress passed and Jackson signed the “Indian Removal Act” in order to get the Native Americans off the land whites now coveted. However, in the case of Worcester vs. Georgia (1832) the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Cherokee. The Supreme Court ruled that the Cherokee Nation was sovereign thus making the removal laws invalid.  The decision was written by Justice John Marshal. As in this current case with Obama, Jackson didn’t like the ruling and issued his now infamous challenge, “John Marshall has made his decision; let him enforce it now if he can.” 

In 1838 the removal of the Cherokee began when General Winfield Scott, along with several thousand men, forcibly removed thousands of Cherokees from their homes and their land. The trip was brutal and about 4000 Cherokees died along the way on what became known as the “Trail Where They Cried” or the “Trail of Tears.” The fact that over 16,000 Cherokee signed a petition opposing the illegal removal didn’t move the Federal Government at all. The Cherokee were relocated to land in what is now Oklahoma.

The “Trail of Tears” tail is now taught in high school history classes as a shameful moment in American History. It not only displayed a brutal treatment of an indigenous people, it showed a President willing to snub the laws of the country in favor of what he personally deemed the proper action.

President Obama’s immediate and overt demonstration of his unwillingness to honor Arizona’s right to protect its people and to subvert the determination of the unanimous ruling of our nations highest court comes less than two weeks after he did likewise to other immigration laws by issuing a Presidential Executive Order prohibiting the deportation of children of illegal immigrants here in this country illegally. It comes three weeks after Obama’s stated support of same-sex marriage in violation of the Federal Defense of Marriage Act. DOMA was passed by both houses of Congress and signed into law in 1996 by Democratic President Bill Clinton. DOMA says the Federal Government and no state is required to recognize a same-sex marriage even if the marriage is licensed in another state. In 2011 the Obama Administration declared they would no longer defend the law in court.

It matters not whether an individual or a President agrees with a law. In the case of a President an oath was taken to defend our nations laws, and in at least these two instances Obama is clearly in violation of his oath. Failure for a President to enforce our laws leaves us not in a Democratic Republic as established by our Founding Fathers, but instead has us inhabiting a Dictatorship or a Monarch which leads to tyranny. Something countless Americans gave their lives to protect against.

Thanks for visiting. Comments are welcome.

A Man Who’s Story Deserves Telling

The following was forwarded to me from a church friend in a mass email, like we all get. Like all of them it challenged me to forward it to my email contacts. Since I never do that, I thought I’d do one better by posting this incredible man’s story on my blog. It’s short and worth the read. Furthermore, it’s worth sharing. Please post this to your social media sites so this man can be remembered by all of us.

May you

Rest In Peace!

Van T. Barfoot 

died at the age of 92 on 2 March 2012 .

Remember the guy who wouldn’t take the 

flag down?

You might remember a news story several months ago 

about a crotchety old man who defied his homeowners association 

and refused to take down the flagpole on his property 

and the large flag that flew on it. 

Now you can find out who, exactly, that old man was.

On June 15, 1919 , 

Van T. Barfoot was born in Edinburg , Mississippi 

— probably didn’t make much news back then. 











Twenty-five years later, on May 23, 1944 , 

near Carano, Italy , Van T. Barfoot, 

who had enlisted in the US Army in 1940, 

set out to flank German machine gun positions 

from which fire was coming down on his fellow soldiers. 






He advanced through a minefield,

took out three enemy machine gun positions 

and returned with 17 prisoners of war.

If that wasn’t enough for a day’s work, he later took on 

and destroyed 

three German tanks sent to retake the machine gun positions.

That probably didn’t make much news either, 

given the scope of the war, 

but it did earn Van T. Barfoot, 

who retired as a Colonel 

after also serving in Korea and Vietnam , 

a Congressional Medal of Honor.













What did make news…

was a neighborhood association’s quibble 

with how the 90-year-old veteran 

chose to fly the American flag 

outside his suburban Virginia home. 

Seems the rules said a flag could be flown 

on a house-mounted bracket, but, for decorum, 

items such as Barfoot’s 21-foot flagpole 

were unsuitable.














He had been denied a permit for the pole, 

erected it anyway and was facing court action 

if he didn’t take it down. 







Since the story made national TV, 

the neighborhood association has rethought its position

and agreed to indulge this old hero who dwells among them.



“In the time I have left I plan to continue to fly the American flag 

without interference,” Barfoot told The Associated Press


As well he should.


And if any of his neighbors still takes a notion to contest him, they

might want to read his Medal of Honor citation. 

It indicates he’s not real good at backing down.




Van T. Barfoot’s Medal of Honor citation:



This 1944 Medal of Honor citation, 

listed with the National Medal of Honor Society,

is for Second Lieutenant Van T. Barfoot, 

157th Infantry, 45th Infantry



Desperate Times and Desperate Measures for the President.

English: Seal of the President of the United S...

Recent decisions, announcements and policy steps by President Barrack Obama show two things. They show how far to the left his true politics are. And they show that he is approaching near desperation in his attempts to secure his re-election.

Obama would be only the fifth U.S. President to fail in his bid for re-election since the start of the 20th Century joining the list of

William Howard Taft (Bones 1878), son of the s...

William Howard Taft, Herbert Hoover,

President Herbert Hoover.

President Herbert Hoover.

Jimmy Carter,

English: James Earl "Jimmy" Carter

James Earl “Jimmy” Carter (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

and George H. W. Bush. Taft and Bush were both victims of a third-party candidate that took more from their presumed voter base than from their winning opponent. Such a situation doesn’t and isn’t currently likely to exist in this year’s Presidential race. Hoover and Carter were both booted from office in large part for presiding over bad economies. Something very much in play in this year’s contest.

In recent weeks Obama has seen voter polls between himself and Republican candidate Mitt Romney narrow to a point of where statistically its a dead heat. Obama has changed his previous position and declared himself in favor of Gay marriage. Then declared by Executive Order that illegal immigrants who were brought into this country by their illegal immigrant parents, could stay in this country and not face deportation from HIS U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service. Finally in the past week at the request of his Attorney General Eric Holder, President Obama declared Executive Privilege on the documents sought by a House Committee in the Fast and the Furious gun running investigation.

The polls reflect the fact that Romney no longer has Republican opponents throwing daggers at him, and the increasingly discontented publics view of the stagnating economy. It’s natural that GOP voters would coalesce behind their candidate and that independents would come his way the more they learn about him. But Obama’s problem is that too many people who voted for him in 2008 are expressing disappointment and a desire to not support him this year.

In a widely viewed televised interview with Pastor Rick Warren Senator Barrack Obama said  “I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian…it is also a sacred union. God’s in the mix.” Apparently no longer thinking it was sacred and that God  was no longer in the mix Obama bent to political pressure and pandered to his liberal base and said, “At a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me, personally, it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married.” Obama had been forced to address the issue by his gaffe prone Vice-President, Joe Biden. The week before Biden said on a National TV show that same-sex couples ought to be able to get married. The media didn’t leave the subject alone everyday thereafter until Obama capitulated, once again demonstrating his lack of leadership. While some believe this change in position won’t lose him any votes it’s a widely held view that many blacks and Catholic Hispanics don’t look favorably upon this decision and won’t be as enthusiastic in supporting their man as they clearly were in 2008.

His move on illegal immigration seems less a change of position than it does a timely gesture toward the Hispanic voting block that he desperately needs to support him big-time in order for him to win re-election. It remains unfathomable to me that Obama and other Democrats can be so blind and insensitive to this nations least educated and poorest legal citizens by continually pushing for some form of amnesty for all illegal immigrants. All one needs to do is compare who you find working at your local fast food restaurant now compared to who used to be their 10-20 years ago. Where such jobs were typically held by teenagers, now their held largely by Spanish-speaking persons, many of whom we can presume are undocumented. A few years back I had carpeting installed in my home a few weeks after doing the same at a rental property we owned. Installation was done by two different companies. In each instance none of the 4-5 workers present at each job spoke English. I feel comfortable saying some, if not all, were illegals. And whats wrong with these observations? Simply, these jobs are not for the wealthy or well-educated or experienced. These jobs were for our young, and our less educated, less schooled, our poorer citizens. Furthermore, since these workers are not in this country legally and often work “off the books” they work for a lower wage, thereby forcing down the wages of competing businesses who hire legal citizens, subsequently making them poorer. One need only look at the unemployment rate overall, and specifically for those without a college education, those in a minority community to see that Obama has abandoned them in order to score some cheap political cache. At the time of this writing the overall unemployment rate is 8.2%. Among blacks its 13.6%. Hispanics its 11%. For those with only a high school diploma its 9.4%. For those without a high school diploma its 14.1%. Their jobs are being taken by lower wage illegals whom Obama lets stay in this country, and come into this country by failing to secure our borders, our security.

In the Fast and the Furious investigation, clearly Obama is doing one of two things. He’s either trying to cover his own ass. Or he’s protecting his hand-picked Attorney General. To claim that the House committee’s investigation, led by California GOP Congressman Darrel Issa, an election year Republican ploy ignores the fact that Obama waited 18 months since the time the subpoenas  were issued. It also ignores the fact the story was only being covered by the FOX News channel until Holder and the President put it front and center by ignoring a Contempt vote against Holder by Issa’s committee and moved to have the documents made off-limits by declaring Executive Privilege. Fast and Furious is the name given an il-advised American investigation of Mexico Drug dealers. The plan was to sell guns to associates of the drug lords in order to trace the guns, or follow them back to the heads of the gangster families. It became an issue when a U.S. Border Patrol agent was killed, allegedly by a person firing a gun bought from the Americans. To date guns sold in this scheme have been found at the scenes of 170 shootings in Mexico. Obama previously claimed he had no previous knowledge of or involvement in the Fast and the Furious operation. Now he claims Executive Privilege which he can’t do in most cases unless the documents under subpoena were from him or to him. Which is it Mr. President? To date Holder has yet to fire anyone responsible for the Fast and the Furious debacle. To date, no one has been held accountable.

Obama has attended more campaign fund-raisers than the previous five Presidents seeking re-election combined. He’s desperate to hold onto his office. We can only hope that American voters feel likewise about not retaining his services.

Thanks for visiting. Comments are welcome.