FCC Complaint

Before The Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554 In the matter of

__________________________________________________________ Michael Stephen Levinson, pro se
Independent candidate for president of United States

__________________________________________________________

ABC Television Network
CBS Television Network
NBC / MSNBC Universal Television Network
PBS Public Broadcasting Network
Fox Television Network
CNN Cable News Network

Complaint

Table of Contents

Page Numbers
1) Complainant v. NBC, MSNBC, CBS, PBS, ABC, Fox, CNN
2-3) Table of Contents
3-5) Motion to grant pro se petitioner leave pursuant to 47 CFR 1.3
Suspension, amendment, or waiver of rules:
5-6) Introductory Comment / Names and addresses of all parties
6) Statement of law §315(a) and §312(a)(7)
7) Relief and Damages Sought
7) Statement of Facts Upon 1st Request for Access
10) Exhibit A Single Space Facsimile Reproduction of 1st Request for Access
14) Health Care Solution Speech To Be Delivered Extemporaneously
17) Banking Reform Essay / Speech also posted at The Daily Beast web site
19) Program to Rejuvenate American Automobile Industry
19) Broadcasters and Cable Casters To Whom Access Request Was Tendered
20) Postal Addresses of access request recipient networks
21) Scanned Image of US Postal Certified Receipts
22) Scanned image of REFUSED TO ACCEPT DELIVERY by NBC
23) Refusal to accept delivery constitutes gross 312(a)(7) violation
24) Exhibit B 2nd 315(a) Access Request upon president Obamas Televised West Point Speech
24) Link to Declaration of Candidacy in New Hampshire. Also campaign web site.
32) War Strategy for Victory in Afghanistan Essay / Speech To Be Delivered
45) Exit Strategy Out of Iraq Essay / Speech To Be Delivered / Link to PDF copy of book by candidate, "New World Hors D'oeuvres" online.
51) Postal Receipts exhibit image
52) RETURN TO SENDER REFUSED envelope images of NBC/MSNBC refusals
53) Exhibit C Facsimile Reproduction 3rd Final 315(a) Request to Respond to State
of the Union Speech as independent candidate for President
54) Michaelslevinson.com Authorized Presidential Web Site Statistics 11/ 09
55) Statement of Law and other matters included in Requests for access
62) Health Care Essay including First Amendment Speech Fund electoral solution
76) The Marijuana Town Hall Issue / Speech To Be Delivered
78) Plugging The Intelligence Hole to Eliminate Domestic Terrorist attacks
79) Clipper Ship Building Program to Create Minimum Two Million Jobs
84) Scanned image of Certified US Postal Receipts of request delivery
85) Scanned image of Refusal to take delivery by NBC to be presented at hearing
86 Scanned image of ABC refusal to accept request Return date 12/19/09
87-8) 5 USCA 553 and 1.721 (4) Timely request for public adjudicatory hearing
89) Comment for the Commissioners followed by Affidavit of Service

Motion to grant pro se petitioner leave to proceed

Petitioner moves, Pursuant to 47 CFR 1.3 Suspension, or waiver of applicable rules:
Petitioner, pro se, is unable to determine length limitations in this complaint, which contains, in its body, as exhibits, the speeches to be delivered including digital reproductions of the US Postal Certified requests for access tendered under §315(a), to which the networks complained against have summarily refused consideration.

Petitioner / complainant prays the Commission grant petitioner leave to proceed, suspending, or waiving page limitations, or any rules that may impede the swift conduce of justice in this matter, and, further, waive any administrative infraction, whether recognized by complainant, who is pro se, or overlooked by complainant and raised by attorneys representing defendant networks complained against who may seek to enjoin this administrative procedure.

The broadcast and cable casting networks constitutional violations require immediate bold measures by the FCC Commissioners. For a lesser violation of law, defendants would ordinarily be individually complained against (citation omitted) leaving to the Communications Commission on its own merit, in its own interest, to suspend the applicable rule, so to join the complaints as one complaint.

However, the public interest issue, the overriding interest of justice in protecting the constitutional rights of the American people to be an informed electorate trumps FCCs administrative prerogative.

Petitioner / complainant, pro se, in the interest of constitutional justice has taken the liberty to join all these parties complained against into a single complaint so that justice may be served, as all are guilty together, in the same instance, of the same impermissible constitutional violation. Petitioner prays the commission grant leave to petitioner to proceed with this consolidation against all of these above named constitution violators together, for purposes of this complaint, as one body for the evidentiary reason as follows:

Introductory Comment

It is clearly shown herewith: the television broadcasters and cable casters willfully violated the constitutional First Amendment right of the American people to political speech, which, according to U.S. constitution, is not permitted.

1. Pursuant to 47 CFR 1.716 (a) Michael Stephen Levinson is occupied as a candidate for the Federal elective office of United States president, 2012. Complainant resides at 8601 Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. St. N. Apt 9, St. Petersburg, Florida, 33702 and can be reached via (727) 466 3064. Complainant address may also be listed as, and US Postal mail is also delivered to complainant address: 8601 9th St N. APT. 9. Complainant campaign address and complainant residence is the same address.

2. Pursuant to 47 CFR 1.716 (b) The Broadcasters complained against, are listed above and may be contacted through the following addresses: 1) ABC Television, president, David Weston / ABC Television / 7 West 66th St. / New York, New York 10023 2) NBC / MSNBC CEO Jeff Zucker / NBC MSNBC Television / 30 Rockefeller Plaza / New York, New York/ 10012 3) Fox Television Rupert Murdoch, Chairman, Fox Television / 1211 Avenue of Americas / New York, New York 10036 4) PBS Television Paula Kerger/Wayne Goodwin? John Boland C/O PBS Television / 2100 Crystal Drive / Arlington, VA 22202 5) CBS Television Leslie Moonves C/O CBS television / 524 West 57th St. New York, New York 10019 6) President / CNN / One CNN Center / Atlanta, Georgia 30303

3. Pursuant to 47 CFR Ch.1 1.716 complainant Michael Stephen Levinson files this Complaint in accordance with 1.721 of this part due to failure of television broadcast networks complained against to even respond to independent candidate for U.S. president Michael Stephen Levinsons three legitimate requests for access under 47 USC 315 (a). Statement of Law

4. 47 USC 315 (a) states If any licensee shall permit any person who is a legally qualified candidate for any public office to use a broadcasting station, he shall afford equal opportunities to all other such candidates for that office in the use of such broadcasting station . . . Appearance by a legally qualified candidate on any (1) bona fide newscast, (2) bona fide news interview, (3) bona fide news documentary, or (4) on-the-spot coverage of bona fide news events (including but not limited to political conventions and activities incidental thereto), shall not be deemed to be a use of a broadcasting station within the meaning of this subsection. . . . .

5. Nothing in the foregoing sentence shall be construed as relieving broadcasters, in connection with the presentation of newscasts, news interviews, news documentaries, and on-the-spot coverage of news events, from the obligation imposed upon them under this chapter to operate in the public interest and to afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views on issues of public importance.

6. Upon the above named networks unwillingness to honor the obligation imposed upon them under this statute, to operate in the public interest and to afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views on issues of public importance, by refusing to even communicate with the independent candidate for president, upon the complainants three requests for access under 315(a), inclusive herewith, in violation of complainants First Amendment rights, as an independent candidate for the office of president of United States, the afore named networks are also in gross violation of 312(a)(7) which authorizes the Commission to,
7. {R}evoke any station license or construction permit . . . for willful or repeated failure to allow reasonable access or to permit purchase of reasonable amounts of time for the use of a broadcast station by a legally qualified candidate for federal elective office on behalf of his candidacy.

8. License revocation, for the repeated constitutional First Amendment violation of the American peoples right to be an informed electorate is the most serious of all charges that can be brought before this agency. Relief and Damages Sought

9. Wherefore, Pursuant to 1.716 (d), 1.721 and 1.722, relative to relief and damages sought, complainant requests commission to order the network broadcasters and cable casters complained against to provide makeup time for each of the three instances of their failure to provide an equal opportunity to complainant, on behalf of an informed electorate, and, in addition, in the same Order, each broadcaster and cable caster shall be required by the Commission to pay complainant damages of one million dollars, penalty, for each of their unconstitutional arbitrary across the board discriminatory rejections of complainants reasonable request for access, total three million dollars from each of the violating networks complained against.

10. In the most recent presidential campaign it was noted the Barack Obama presidential campaign raised and spent approximately 700 million dollars. In a benchmark editorial, years ago, former Wall Street Journal editor-in-Chief Robert Bartley stated, and petitioner paraphrases, â€˜A presidential campaign, to be considered credible by newspapers, and other media, must raise, before the political campaigning begins, no less than 20 million dollars. Whereas the networks complained against have placed their licenses to broadcast and cable cast in jeopardy, by their willful and repeated failure to respond to petitioners reasonable requests, and these licenses are valued at billions of dollars, and these damages sought could be and could have been raised from the electorate during a broadcast, had these above named networks, under well settled laws that govern their license to broadcast and cablecast, simply honored their lawful obligation to the American people, petitioner would not be seeking or be entitled to the reasonable damages sought by petitioner, which enables petitioner to proceed as the credible candidate he is; for the recalcitrant networks refusal to have allowed access is both an attack on petitioners rights, damaging petitioners credibility, their refusal trashes the unbridgeable right of the American people to see and hear a speech by a candidate for president, and this impermissible violation of law cannot go untouched.

11. Statement of Facts Upon 1st Request for Access

12. Pursuant to 1.716 (c), and 1.721(a)(5) the following is a true statement of facts.

13. On September 9, 2009 President Obama delivered a partisan political speech on the issue of health care to a joint session of Congress. The president requested his meeting with both Houses of Congress along with the use of network television to cover his staged political event. The networks complied with the presidents request for television coverage.

14. The networks clearly recognized that airing the presidents speech to both houses of congress, while contributing to their public interest obligations, was a non-exempt political use of television, subjecting the broadcasters and cable casters to 315(a) obligations on their part, to other candidates for the office of president.

15. Consequently, the networks complained against contacted congressional leaders of the Republican Party and offered the Republican Party equal opportunity to address the nation on the health care issues. Republican party leaders chose U.S. Representative Charles W. Boustany, Jr., Republican of 7th Congressional district, Southwest Louisiana, to address the nation, following the president.

16. Boustany was selected to give an address on lowering health care costs, in response to and following the President's remarks to the joint session of Congress television show, on Wednesday night, September 9, 2009.

17. This fact, that equal opportunities as required by the 315(a) statute, were offered to the republican party was also clearly pointed out in complainants request for access, which was timely delivered to the defendant parties named above. An electronic copy of the September 15, 2009 Equal Opportunity request is included with this Complaint as Exhibit (A) and is included in the body of this complaint, herewith. This reasonable request for access, made upon well settled communications law also includes a restatement of the 315(a) law, as is shown herewith:

Exhibit A

To: The individual chief operating officers and / or appropriate officials in charge of the following broadcast and cable casting networks : ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC.
Dear Sir or Madam,
Upon the public interest standard, this letter is a request for equal opportunity access under Section 315 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

This Section 315 access request by Michael Stephen Levinson, candidate for president of United States, is made in order for Michael Stephen Levinson to respond to Barack Obama's political speech which president Obama delivered to both Houses of Congress, on September 9, 2009, using your television channels to deliver his speech to our nation, by equally delivering my response, on your television or cable network, being what I see the health care reforms we require for our nations economic health, and other economic issues, besides.

The evening which I am requesting for broadcast and cable cast time, to use in order to deliver my response to president Barack Obama's speech, under Section 315, is September 29, from 8:00 PM to 9:00 PM Eastern Standard Time.

This Section 315 request for access is my response to president Barack Obama's televised partisan political speech, that delivered live to both Houses of Congress, in the evening prime time hours, on September 9, 2009, 6 days ago.

The president's nationwide speech was a partisan political speech. This was made clear by republican Member of the House Joe Wilson, who interrupted the president's speech, pointing his finger and loudly shouting, "You lie."

What immediately follows, for your convenience, is a partial statement of the law, citations removed, and where appropriate, my commentary added.

The Communications Act of 1934, as amended, authorizes the FCC to issue licenses to broadcast stations only if it finds that such grants will serve the public convenience, interest, or necessity.

While the Commission is charged with ensuring that all broadcasters serve the public interest, the public interest standard is not clearly defined by statute. However, the FCC has specified several public interest obligations relating to programming and consumer accessibility that broadcasters must fulfill. A significant part of a broadcast licensees public interest obligation relates to political broadcasts.

Mass media political speech is a First Amendment Right we bequeath on our candidates for federal elective office.

Pursuant to section 315 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, if a broadcaster allows any person who is a legally qualified candidate for any public office to use a broadcasting station; he shall afford equal opportunities to all other such candidates for that office in the use of such broadcasting station. Under section 315, the broadcaster is not permitted to censor the material broadcast by the candidates.

Certain types of broadcasts are exempt from the equal opportunity requirements.

Under section 315, an appearance by a legally qualified candidate on any (1) bona fide newscast; (2) bona fide news interview; (3) bona fide news documentary; or (4) on-the-spot coverage of bona fide news events , is not deemed to be use of a broadcasting station for equal opportunity purposes.

Generally, equal opportunity is defined to prohibit discrimination between candidates. The practices, regulations, facilities, or services for or in connection with service rendered by the broadcaster must be the same for all candidates for a political office. Broadcast licensees are also prohibited from making any contract or other agreement which shall have the effect of permitting any legally qualified candidate for any public office to broadcast to the exclusion of other legally qualified candidates for the same office.

Under this provision, for example, a station could not enter into a contract with a candidate stipulating that the station would not sell time to another candidate during the same time period.

Section 315 does not require broadcasters to allow candidates to use their facilities; however, under the Reasonable Access Requirement, Section 312 (a)(7), the willful or repeated failure to allow reasonable access to or to permit purchase of reasonable amounts of time for the use of a broadcasting station . . . by a legally qualified candidate for Federal elective office on behalf of his candidacy could lead to revocation of the stations license.

The FCC, decades ago, established principles governing political broadcasting, attempting, back in the day, an required ongoing promulgation of Acts of Congress, with an eye to guaranteeing the First Amendment rights of candidates to deliver their live political speeches on mass media, along with the rights of the populace to see and hear said speeches without infringing the rights of broadcasters, keeping in mind the overriding issue: the paramount rights of the electorate to be an informed electorate, via the broadcaster's adherence to the public interest standard.

On this threshold issue of my entitlement to an equal opportunity, as an active independent candidate for president, my entitlement to an equal opportunity with the president of United States, upon his partisan political speech on health care reform delivered to both Houses of Congress played live on the aforementioned broadcast and cable casting networks, please note, as was noted by wire services and various newspapers nationwide:

U.S. Representative Charles W. Boustany, Jr., (Republican of 7th congressional district Southwest Louisiana) was selected to give an address on lowering health care costs, in response to and following the President's remarks to a joint session of Congress on Wednesday night.

The networks being requested for an equal opportunity under Section 315 aired Representative Charles W. Boustany, Jr.'s Section 315 equal opportunity response to the president after the president concluded his political speech.

Any claim of exemption on your part is clearly an First Amendment chilling, arbitrary discrimination against both the First Amendment Rights of this independent candidate for president, Michael Stephen Levinson, to deliver his independent response, and the American people's First Amendment Right to hear this candidate's proposed solution to our health care insurance problem.

In the event you, the network broadcasters and or cable casters determine you are above our law and therefore willfully discriminate against this independent candidate for president and thus deny this independent candidate for president's request for access you should be prepared to suffer the consequence which could be the revocation of your broadcast license, for your willful failure to adhere to your obligation to the American people, upon your willful suppression of the American people's paramount right to hear an independent candidate for the office of president offer his innovative solution to this vexing health care issue to which, in fact, no other candidate or member of congress, or any elected official claims to have any solution to.

The Federal Communication Commission is not a party to this request.

In 2000, the Federal Communications Commission illegally and unconstitutionally amended an Act of Congress. They did this via unconstitutional earmark, slipped into an appropriations bill. FCC removed the First Amendment obligation of 356 PBS stations to air political speeches by any candidate for federal elective office.

What applies for one, applies for all. This 'earmark' whether approved by Congress or not, is beyond chilling. It violates the First Amendment Right of the American people to political speech.

The "earmark" stated the Federal Communications Commission was absolved from even "answering the telephone" (the candidate's paraphrase) upon complaint against the broadcast network for their failure to respond to a request for access by a legally qualified candidate for federal elective office.

Therefore, the Commission, by its own hand, dissolved its jurisdiction over the adjudication of any dispute related to my, or any federal candidates First Amendment Right to give a mass media broadcast political speech, on an equal opportunity equal mass media footing, with the president of United States, my intent, by virtue of this Section 315 equal opportunity request for access.

While the Statute has been liberally interpreted to mean that I, the candidate, am not obligated to state in advance what I propose to say, because a candidate cannot be censored, I DISAGREE WITH THAT LIBERAL INTERPRETATION.

I hold you the network broadcasters are entitled to know in advance, that the candidate seeking the air time under Section 315, though the time is an entitled "use;" and even though the candidate is "entitled" to an uncensored "use," the candidate has programs and plans to offer the electorate beyond 'platitudes," "policies," and "positions." You are entitled to that information.

The following 1400 word essay will take approximately 20 minutes of my requested hour of broadcast / cablecast time. Included here, you can read my carefully crafted original innovative approach to providing health care coverage for the millions of uninsured people without inflating our federal budget.

I include the only long-term solution feasible, supply demand answer at the end of the essay: free medical education for doctors, dentists, and all related personal. In fact, one could easily spend a half hour on that single paragraph!

The 2nd essay following is another economic program, to reform Wall Street, specifically, the banks. My plan will work in such a way to replace the income taxes paid by working people in our country with the mortgage interest being paid on our the privately mortgaged property.

180 million taxpayers will have total tax relief on the first 125 thousand dollars of their earnings without any reduction whatsoever in the revenues coming in to the federal government, so all our public commitments are kept intact.

The approach by president Obama was / is to bail out giant Wall Street banks instead of individual people. My approach as a candidate for president is to create a new financial instrument: The Mortgage Savings Bond, to bail out every homeowner, and with these bonds, purchase every mortgage in the country.

It is for the American people to decide whether they want this economic solution, not the broadcasters who air commercials paid for by the banks.

The third essay, The National Car-Lotto is my economic program to rejuvenate the automobile industry in America without cost to the taxpayer. I intend to spend at least ten minutes explaining this program to the American people.

The final ten minutes may be devoted to my reform program of the credit card industry, by explaining my plan for the "Uncle Sam Shazam Card, a "public option" open to every Master Card / Visa / Capital One, credit card holder in the United States.

My intent for the interest accrued on the potential 150 million Uncle Sam Shazam card holders is to direct that interest paid on the Shazam Cards be applied to the interest due on our national debt.

When I explained my Shazam Credit Card reform program to my Chase banker, my banker blurted out, "We will be in the black."

I believe the American people will agree with my Chase banker, that my non-partisan economic programs in total, will put our country in the black, on the right track, without inflation or devaluation of our currency.

Read the essays included in my request, that are part of my Section 315 access request, part of my response to the president's political speech and please acknowledge my request for access so I dont have to move against you in the Federal Court with an Order to Show Cause.

I am available for interview, on or off camera and willing to answer any question.

Whats in your wallet, besides your broadcast and cablecast license? Reply to:

Michael Stephen Levinson
8601 9th St N. # 9
St Petersburg, Florida 33702

Essay # 1 the first part of my Section 315 equal opportunity request for airtime.

Our free enterprise, the American heartbeat is stressed! One prob limb is the growing roll that lost their health insurance along with their jobs. My Loose Penny Program, a capital injection, will instantly begin to repair our economic muscle, but to create jobs, mission critical steps must be taken.

President Obama needs to exit the teleprompter trail, cold cream his charcoaled eyelids and summon our fast foods, supermarket; Target and Wal-Mart CEOs into the White House to ink my proposed infusion solution. Obama went to Cairo. He can palaver with KFC. The loose change in your pocket will make the health care diff rinse our economy requires.

Every chain must participate in our Loose Pennies Program, regardless the size of their enterprise.Â Our purpose: an additional two-cents in their cash registers. For every item registered we want two pennies extra, added as patriotic gratuity.

This is not a government mandate. Anyone can refuse to pay the voluntary tip. Burger, fries and a drink totals six extra cents, pennies off the pavement. Regardless what we purchase at the market; we are only pitching in some loose change out of pocket. 40 items at the supermarket could easily be $150. Does another 80 cents inhibit your generosity?

A worker chosen by the workers to represent them can meet with the managers to approve the total pennies for everything out the door the week before, dividing that total by everyones hours worked.

Then we include up to $2 dollars extra for every hour in the workers paychecks. A 5 % deduct for a Medical Malpractice Pool is also doable, which employers dont have to match, so their sticker prices wont rise from an extra cost of doing business. The chains wont be squeezed from our Medical Assurance pay raise that, on managements tally sheet, is a plus minus wash!

The workers pay increase wont come out of managements pocket, but work place production is guaranteed to grow. When someone quits, the crew will likely ask the boss to leave them pick up the slack, so they earn more money!

The overage, beyond the $2 dollars hourly extra in every pay, goes to interest bearing Medical Savings Accounts, with the worker's name on his or her portion. President Obama can ask those on the low end of the economic chain to divide their bounty, or the President can order the take home half in cash, with the balance going to grow these proposed medical savings accounts, a health care solution ten million people strong.

The medical savings account, as a health care solution beats health insurance!

Insurance companies are dedicated to making money, not protecting the sick from financial disaster. When an insurance company cancels your policy because you have an expensive disease, they dont refund your premium. But with a Health Assurance Savings Account, when you quit or get fired from the job, your medical savings account goes with you!

After a year behind the fast food counter, a 40-hour per week worker could have more than two grand in their Health Assurance account. Ten million uninsured people at the bottom of our economic food chain might not have health care insurance but all would carry Health Assurance! In the event they dont feel right they have access to medical care, and a second opinion, because the money to pay is there.Â When its your money, unneeded procedures evaporate.

Other companies, besides the fast food chains could have the option of halving medical savings accounts, in lieu of providing an insurance policy for their workers. A sensible choice solution eliminates insurance company monopolies.

This works for the medical professional, too. You accept the charge, the doctor swipes your Medical Assurance card and the money is debited from your Health Assurance account. The insurance bureaucrat is out of the mix.

This proposed over-the-counter voluntary two-cent gratuity, $344 dollars monthly doesnt bash our budget. These out of pocket pennies go to the working not so rich, without government intrusion. Government Bureaus are by-passed, but to investigate anonymous charges about businesses that may be cheating workers.

In all the dry cleaners add a nickel to every shirt pressed, a dime for every dry cleaned piece. In all the family operated dry cleaners, medical savings accounts will replace the workers share of their familys health insurance.

This 2 cents extra covers 90% of all the minimum and lower wage jobs in USA, juicing the recovery by pumping the bottom of our economic chain, enriching the people most likely to purchase goods with their money! Fresh dollars spent creates jobs. Those in low echelon jobs, working 40 hours a week will have $80 extra weekly in his or her pay envelope, the diff rinse between scraping by and getting ahead; the advantage of $76 after a 5% set aside for our Medical Malpractice Pool, $40 in their pay with at least $36 going for Health Assurance savings.

Millions of uninsured not so rich people building Medical Assurance Accounts will directly benefit from this voluntary deal. We gain from tipping our pennies to working folks, as these millions of uninsured wont be crowding emergency clinics for care, which we all pay for. Emergency health care costs are infected by the actuarial projections of how many uninsured people might use emergency room walk-ins for care during the course of any year.

People in min-wage jobs with Health Assurance accounts pay for access on a need-to-be seen basis. In addition to medical savings accounts, the two cents gratis can secure a million defaulting mortgages, a contribution to neighborhood health as foreclosed house disease is a cancer that devalues the whole street.

For the rest of our uncovered citizenry, doctors and dentists must be allowed the volunteer opportunity to do tax deductible charity, treating them. A charity patient is anyone without insurance. The plan: doctors do $50,000 in charitable medical services and deduct the 50 large off the top of their federal tax. Then, after all the deductions, the doctors take an additional half off their bottom line; twenty-five thousand or half, whichever is greater.Â

Medical professionals could perform $100,000 in charity and deduct $50,000 off their tax, and because they only owed $49,000 in taxes, earn a one thousand dollar income tax credit. This health care approach cost effectively makes sense.

Doctors wont be at the mercy of an insurance companies, take it or leave it payment. People suffering with unaffordable premiums, with pre-assurance from their physicians, will begin to cancel their overpriced insurance policies.

Every doctor will have a waiting list of patients waiting to be classified as charity. Doctors will have more patients, their work incentive, freedom of income tax.

Isnt this one-line change in our tax code easier to digest than a thousand page med-reform stick-it-to-us vaccination, unread even by its authors, our congress? Would insurance companys shills show up at town hall meetings screaming, Its a communist plot! Down with their two cents for medical savings accounts?Â

Every doctor and dentist will have a sign on the door: No insurance? Im here.

These ideas will enrich our economy from the bottom up, possibly save a million mortgages, and insure access to health care services for many, if not all the millions of uninsured people, leaving rip off insurance companies to self reform, according to our free enterprise marketplace.

The long-term solution to our health care prob limb is free medical education for doctors, dentists, and all related personal, our goal one hundred thousand doctors graduated every year until we have one family doctor for every thousand people. A national marijuana tax could fund this program, as could a three per cent reduction in military contracts. Politicians are sometimes eloquent identifying the issues, but it is those who finance their campaigns that govern the solutions.

In this light, the above proposed change in our tax code, encouraging doctors and dentists to treat the uninsured as a deductible charity, could not pass either House of our current congress absent a public outcry demanding it.

I am the unknown poet, a long-time candidate for president, roasting in the sun.

Once upon a time our Fourth Estate was independent, standing watch, reporting true. Todays corporate approach to politics locks out the unknowns who seek public office, a primary reason there arent any candidates. You announce, Im a candidate. The editors dont ask, What are your ideas? But, Show us twenty million dollars. And without access to buckets of ducats, the access to broadcast speech, to present their platforms is also blocked. Blog in the bog, dog.

â€¨ We need to renew our politics, starting with the reestablishment of our First Amendment Right to televised political speech.Â Upon this essay, I am requesting e quill time of our television networks, to give my independents response to president Obamas health care speech to the congress, which the broadcast and cable networks aired live, September 9, 2009.

Here is essay # 2 on banking reform that will use around 20 minutes of airtime. This copy was posted today, online, at The Daily Beast under my Oliver C. Kerr screen name.

Oliverckerr

â€¨ This is my banking program, to rejuvenate our e con oh me and reform the banksters. What you might ask is how many million Americans would vote for the program.

While reform of our health care is on the table this week, the crush of mortgages near, or already in default is another economic crisis that inhibits our economic rejuvenation.

We used to say, what's good for General Motors was good for America. But today, as America goes, so might go the planet. We need to refresh our cap id a list structures, get back to basics, and renew our enterprise.

Everything hangs in the balance of sense. To start, we, the governed people, through the entity that is our government, should purchase all the mortgages in our whole country, the good, the bad, and the ugly. Ugly mortgages are those known as tock sick.

The mortgages can be purchased with Mortgage Savings Bonds, an original innovative financial instrument, not cold cash, hot off the presses. Cheyenne-easy say, "Cash fusion burn hole in pocket," a recent example, zombie bank's remodeling their washrooms with silver trashcans and gilt toilet seats for their visiting associates.

The Mortgage Savings Bonds couldn't be cashed in until the mortgages are paid, but they certainly could be sold or traded by their holders on the open market. Savings Bonds are backed by the good faith of the American people and in this issue, real property on which the Mortgage Savings Bonds will be written.

We can pay 90 cents on the dollar for the good, 85 cents for the bad, and 60 cents for the ugly; millions of mortgages, refinanced with thirty-year fixed rates, the diff rinse in the spread, according to the credit worthiness of the mortgagee, in tryst running from 3% for triple A, up to 7% for sub-prime, tock sick late pay holders rated as deadbeat.

Rather than future bailouts, or government intervention, banks can work with us or sink in their zombie holes. If need be, by Executive Order, we are purchasing all home mortgages, good, bad, or troubled, with Mortgage Savings Bonds backed by the good faith of the American people. We, the people are entitled to repurchase the fruits of our labors. This proposed buyout is a reasonable, 'yes we can do' beneficial refinance program!

Redoing these millions of mortgages, a giant job, can be accomplished with a fail-safe do-it-your self, online program. Those who aren't computer literate can get their numbers entered by income tax preparers, their nominal fee, Uncle Sam guaranteed. Every homeowner in America benefits from a reasonable mortgage payment. The worlds e con oh me will settle into normal non-inflationary growth from this mortgage solution.

We can tack a non-interest 2nd mortgage on sub-prime homes that swapped and sold for twice their value, tock sick still, after a 60 percent whack, so people can remain in their sub-prime dream, pay down their debt, and eventually, as prices inch up, their mortgage drawn down, see their liens paid off fair and square, with their equity left intact. This is a great way to stabilize sub-prime neighborhoods.

After our Louisiana styled repurchase, the mortgages on every house in America will be handed over to bank branches in the same zip codes, to service the debt. The ex-mortgage holder banks are compensated for the service, that amounting to collecting our mortgage payments, on behalf of us, the Savings Bond backers, we, the people, standing behind Uncle Sam and Aunt Samantha.

We let the banks hold 'our' money, twelve payments worth, before they have to, after their nominal handling fee, begin handing over our ducats to our Treasury. With our mortgage money available, banks at the branch level will be flush with liquidity, replacing the money their central managers blew on competitive swap speculations.

Banks can start loaning 'our' money to all the capital hungry businesses in their zip codes. There will be in tryst on the Mortgage Savings Bonds with which all the home mortgages were purchased. There will be in tryst on 'our' money, which we are allowing the banks to borrow from us to loan out to all the businesses in their neighborhoods that require capital, so interest we accrue from the trillion-dollar mortgage purchase is washed.

In some cases, temporarily, our mortgage payments could be loaned to the zombie banks to turn around at a profit, so they can restart without government foreclosure. Banks should like that. We have options. Instead of a seizure and selling, we could let the zombies fold their tents and quadruple our federal credit unions as their instant replacements. One aspect of our federal credit union system: the shareowners are the credit union's depositors. What is the flaw of a capitalist enterprise funded, owned and run by its users, like our Medicare?

A few months back, Treasury Secretary Geithner, on "This Week, With George Stephanopoulos," stated: "A core part of our plan involves making sure banks have enough capital to provide the lending we are going [slur] need to get recovery back on track

Now to the in tryst on all these millions of mortgages: The banks must fork that money over to Uncle Sam every month! Speculate that the interest on all the home mortgages in USA, totals 300 billion dollars each month. Now consider all the income tax collected from the taxpayers, their taxable earnings up to 125 grand's worth, also equals 300 billion dollars per month.

The interest on all our home mortgages can replace our income tax, up to the first 125 thousand dollars worth of taxable income! Someone who rents has their income tax dollars in their own pocket to do with as they please, pay down credit card debt, save up for a house, a car, the kid's tuition, pizza. Keeping your own money is a politic rant to which we all subscribe.

â€¨ "The day is here /machines kin run / in do the whirr kin / No tax on my hands brother / Tax machines instead.

A working homeowner is freed from paying income tax. The interest on his mortgage goes for our public works, replacing the tax on his hands. D.C. has operating capital and we, the people keep what is ours. Apply this same principal to commercial mortgages. This isn't a commie heist! Only the mortgages are seized, not the property, and they are fairly paid for. Savings Bonds are a great rock solid investment. This buyout is fabulous for commercial mortgage holders because so many are facing default.

The advantage: their property is purchased, the mortgage in the hands of the government, via Mortgage Savings Bonds, letting the owners off the hook, their option, retain property management, which pays them money. The principal goes toward retiring the Mortgage Saving Bonds, the in tryst to cover the rising cost of living, example Medicare, so life is good for all.

The above program provides permanent income tax relief for our citizenry, tock sick asset relief for bogus banks, and effective capital replenishment for the government. With this mortgage innovation in place, other countries will be lining up to invest in America.

At the end of the This Week segment, after replaying the Saturday Night Live spoof of Treasury Secretary Geithner that aired the night before, Secretary Geithner remarked, "People have a lot of ideas. We listen to everybody. The only test that matters is, is it going to work? Is it going to get credit flowing again?

The government program hasn't worked and won't. But this program will.

â€¨â€¨ 180 million taxpayers will vote for these recession stuffing relief measures in a heartbeat because every taxpayer benefits. President Obama should smell the coffee. The president's approach feeds the bureaucracies that fed his campaign by printing trillions of dollars in future debt, Obama's risk: a single stick of chewing gum will cost our gum chewing electorate one dollar plus tax before 2010.

This program bypasses bureaucracies, the only ego inflated creatures on planet earth that both feed on themselves, and multiply. Can you suck on your toe and create two of you? Bureaucracies can and do. Bureaucracies are rigid, appearing unsinkable, but they must be sliminated for planet health. We need to rearrange how our governments generate money so the funds are available to cleanly reenergize our good ship Mother Urf.

â€¨â€¨ michaelslevinson.com

10:53 am, Sep 15, 2009

Here is the 3rd essay which is intended as part of my one hour speech based on my constitutional right under Section 315 of our telecommunications law, to seek an equal opportunity s a candidate for president, representing the interests of independent voters un aligned with any political party.

The National Car-Lotto

I want to be the car czar. Firstly, I like the rhyme. But I also have a plan that will put cash-for-clunkers to shame: a national car lottery.Â

Here's how the National Car-Lotto works: $1 tickets are sold nationwide every week. We take the average price of every model sold by GM, Ford, and Chryslersay that is $23,000, with taxes, tag, dealer fees and extended warranties included. For every 23,000 tickets sold, one lucky winner gets the American-made car of his or her choice with all the additional fees covered and no tax liability until they sell or trade their win.

Â With an advertising blitz on radio, TV, newspapers and the web, our big three could raffle off thousands of cars every week30,000 cars is a reasonable goal, each one paid in full upfront with the lotto money.Â

Everybody wins! Consumers get the car of their choicea youngster in school might want a Focus, someone else a Sebring convertible, a family of five, a Hybrid Yukon. Regardless, each car comes fully loaded! The American publicnot the White Housedecides whichÂ manufacturersÂ survive and thrive. The dealerships come out on top, too, as the full sticker sales commission is divided amongst their sales force.

Best of all, many car-lotto winners will be people who drive, but aren't in the market to purchase a new car or truck, much as they'd love to. Millions of people who can't afford to purchase a new car but can afford to run a vehicle will purchase car-lotto raffle tickets, whether they own a gas guzzling clunker or not! The odds of winning a fully loaded, state-of-the-art car23,000 to 1are way better then winning the lotto!

GM will have thousands of Volts pre-sold before the first one rolls off the line. We could even start a high-end two-dollar ticket and include Silicon Valleys all-electric Tesla.Â

Those people who are planning on a new car aren't going to hold off until they win one in the car-lotto; especially with their neighbor's lotto winner gleaming next door. In a tight world market, our auto industry will survive long term from the good faith of the car-lotto raffle ticket purchasing public.

Here is our president, Barky 'Good Wrench' Obama, on TV back in March, barking his approach to killing off GM and Chrysler. I paraphrase President Obama:

"Its time we make the automobile industry dependent on the unending flow of AmericanÂ raffleÂ dollars."

The used-to-be Big Three can pay my car czar wages and cover the TV ads. The lotto people can administer the daily raffle.

We should move on this and give our car industry a chance to renegotiate fresh rolls in a permanently altered worldÂ e con oh me. I want to be the car czar guy in the ads exhorting everyone to purchase their car-lotto raffle ticket, the industry's Car Czarselling a chance far more likely than winning the Lotto or getting onÂ American Idol.

That way, when I run for president, from being in all the ads, every buddy knows me. Sad, when it comes to politics, in today's bureaucratic world there isn't any room for innovation. With all the status quo egos blocking the way, it's difficult to even foist an original idea into play, much less myself, on the table, though millions of jobs will be secured from this old fashioned lotto-raffle.

â€¨ CC: ABC News, 7 West 66th Street, New York, NY 10023
NBC News
â€¨30 Rockefeller Plaza
â€¨New York, N.Y. 10112

CBS Television
51 West 52nd Street
New York, NY 10019
Leslie Moonves
President and Chief Executive Officer, CBS Corporation

Jan McNamara, 703/739-5028, jmcnamara@pbs.org
PBS
â€¨ 100 Crystal Drive
â€¨Arlington, VA 22202

â€¨ FOX News Channel
1211 Avenue of the Americas, 2nd Floor, New York, NY 10036
Phone: 212-301-3000
Web: www.foxnews.com

Brian Lewis, Executive Vice President
Corporate Communications
Phone: 212-301-3331
Fax: 212-819-0816
E-Mail: brian.lewis@foxnews.com

Irena Briganti, Senior Vice President
Media Relations
Phone: 212-301-3608
Â Fax: 212-819-0816
E-Mail: irena.briganti@foxnews.comÂ

CNN
One CNN Center
Atlanta, GA 30303

MSNBC PRESIDENT / NBC News
â€¨30 Rockefeller Plaza
â€¨New York, N.Y. 10112
President / MSNBC on the Internet
â€¨ One Microsoft Way
â€¨Redmond, WA 98052

1. The addresses listed (pages 20-21) above are the addresses of the 7 broadcasters and cable casters where the request for access under 315(a) was timely tendered.

2. Exhibit (A) 1, inserted following the addresses, is the photocopy of the Certified Postal receipts. Exhibit (A) 2 Is a scanned image of the envelope containing the request marked RETURN TO SENDER REFUSED.

3. RETURN TO SENDER REFUSED constitutes the NBC and MSNBC response to the presidential candidates legal request for access. Upon reading the name Michael Stephen Levinson on the envelope, NBC, and MSNBC both, in order to demonstrate their unlawful prejudice and continuing policy of discrimination against Michel Stephen Levinson, simply refused to accept, read and /or consider the request for access.

4. This judgment on the part of NBC and MSNBC to arbitrarily reject any request for access by refusing to even accept the request for access constitutes a gross violation of 312(a)(7) that requires immediate intercession by the full Commission, upon receipt of this complaint.

5. Complainant 2nd Request for Access under 315(a) was in response to President Obamas use of the television granted by the networks for his Afghanistan policy speech. An alternative to the presidents Afghanistan war plan was not offered by the republican party. Complainants 2nd Request for Access under 315(a) was timely filed within the seven day time frame window of equal opportunity to the above named networks on December 8, 2009. An electronic copy of the December 8, 2009 Equal Opportunity request is included with this Complaint as Exhibit (B) and is included in the body of this complaint, herewith. This legal request for access was tendered under well settled communications law and also includes a statement of the law within the request. Exhibit B, tendered to the named TV networks is facsimile reprinted as follows: Exhibit B December 8, 2009

To: The individual chief operating officers and / or appropriate officials in charge of the following broadcast and cable casting networks: ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC.

From: Michael Stephen Levinson for president of United States 2012
Dear presidents, Chief Operating Officers, and others,
I, Michael Stephen Levinson am a candidate for the office of president of United States. I have been actively campaigning for the office of president since October 15, 2007 when, in Secretary of State William Gardners office, in New Hampshire, I declared my candidacy for president of United States, declaring that I was seeking the nomination of both political parties so our nation could present a united face to the world, as I was bringing to the office of president of United States a Vehicle for World Peace.

The public recording of this campaign declaration speech is available on the Internet at http://youtube.com/poetprophet. My political web site, http://michaelslevinson.com is devoted to my continuing candidacy for the office of president of United States.

The michaelslevinson.com web site visit statistics for November 2009 show 937 unique visitors, 1346 visits, 14,361 page views, and 54,057 hits.

This letter of request for access to all of you, individually and as a group is a request for access by Michael Stephen Levinson, candidate for president, under Section 315 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,

This Section 315 access request by Michael Stephen Levinson, candidate for president of United States, is made in order for candidate Levinson to respond to President Obama's most recent political speech, which Obama delivered to the nation, from West Point, on December 1, 2009.

President Obamas speech was a use of the television networks, not an exempt news event. When Obama used all of your television channels to deliver his political Afghanistan war speech to our nation, he was enabled to do so because you individually granted president Obama the opportunity to use your network. This grant of opportunity opened the door to access requests for an equal opportunity to address the nation by other candidates for president.

Had the networks negotiated with the president to hold a press conference at West Point, with the first four rows for media persons, whether he took questions after his teleprompter presentation or not, the press conference would have been an exempt news event. Instead Obama, with your cooperation, scheduled a use.

The evening which I am requesting for broadcast and cable cast time, to use my equal opportunity, in order to deliver my response to president Barack Obama's Afghanistan speech, under Section 315, is December 22, from 8:00 PM to 9:00 PM Eastern Standard Time.

The presidents West Point use of the television networks for political purpose was on Tuesday, December 1, 2009. This equal opportunity request for access under Section 315 is filed Tuesday, December 8, 2009, within the seven-day window for legal requests.

In the event you fail to respond to my legal request for access to deliver a speech in response to the presidents speech, under USC 47 Section 315, I will have no choice but begin immediate legal steps for judicial intercession.

I prefer to hear from your offices and / or your news divisions as your news divisions are very liable to have many questions about my Afghanistan War strategy, and I am prepared to answer any and all of their questions on the subject of the presidents war strategy and other political matters your news divisions consider of import.

The president's nationwide speech was a partisan political speech, what with his professionally applied eye shadow dressing and careful scripting, a use of the airwaves for partisan political purpose.

To the best of my knowledge and belief, I am the only declared candidate for president besides the sitting president at this time, likely the only person to have requested access under Section 315 to make a speech.

The campaigning for president of United States, and in the case of a sitting president, the campaigning for re-election, ongoing from the day of the presidents inauguration is a reality, as campaigning for the presidency and all the other federal offices in America is a full time media industry. The difference between todays campaigning, for Obama, not quite one year in office, and his campaign activities three years hence, is intensity.

The presidents statement, during his speech, that we would begin to draw down our troops in Afghanistan, in 2011, after the planned 30,000 thousand troop surge, coincides with the period for his full time campaigning for re-election, while conducting the business of our highest office. One can hear the ongoing war slogan, Dont change horses in the middle of a stream.

When broadcast television consisted of three networks and cable television was in its infancy, in order to protect the television viewing public from an onslaught of campaign speeches, arbitrary requirements were promulgated by the Federal Communications Commission to walk a fine line between regulating unbridled political speech, while at the same time, protecting the First Amendment Rights of the viewing public to hear a political speech.

In todays television world, bandwidth and spectrum are practically unlimited with hundreds of channels for the viewers to choose from, so the Commissions arbitrary limits on First Amendment rights are not applicable.

In fact, in 2000, the Federal Communications Commission abrogated its purview over the interpretation of our political access laws and how these statutes relate to the public interest when the commission breached the boundaries of its own discretion, rewriting the 312(a)(7) statute passed by the congress to facilitate the unconstitutional removal of 356 PBS stations from their obligations to the public interest standard, relative to allowing access for political speech by candidates for federal elective office.

Therefore, the Commission, by its own hand, dissolved its jurisdiction over the adjudication of any dispute related to my, or any federal candidates First Amendment Right to give a mass media broadcast political speech, on an equal opportunity equal mass media footing, with the president of United States, which is my intent, by virtue of this Section 315 equal opportunity request to you networks, for access.

This rewriting of our access law, trenching the First Amendment Rights of the American people to hear or to deliver a speech violates our constitution. The Commissions unconstitutional act is subject to challenge in Federal District Court, on its own merit, without this e quill time request for access under Section 315.

Of course this legitimate request for access will be attached as a showing that you, the networks sit above the law, and do not respect the law or the First Amendment rights of the citizenry who constitute your viewership.

As the Supreme Court made clear, over and over:
It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters which is paramount . . . It is the purpose of the First Amendment to preserve an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail, rather than to countenance monopolization of that market . . . It is the right of the public to receive suitable access to social, political, esthetic, moral, and other ideas and experience which is crucial here. That right may not constitutionally be abridged either by Congress or by the FCC.

Understand when the US Marshall delivers the Order to Show Cause why your license should not be revoked for your willful and repeated failure to allow access it will be too late for your license, because the law is the law.

As noted above, you, the television networks and president Obama could very simply have avoided having to grant any equal opportunity, upon request, by requesting president Obama, instead of scheduling a political speech, to have called for a press conference to be held at West Point, the first three or four rows of seats for press only, upon which Obama could have delivered his teleprompter speech, as a news event, and therefore not subject to equal opportunity obligations.

While the Statute has been liberally interpreted, when bandwidth was limited and scarce, to mean that I, the candidate, am not obligated to state in advance what I propose to say, because a candidate cannot be censored, I disagree with that liberal interpretation of the statute.

I hold you the network broadcasters are entitled to know in advance, that the candidate seeking the air time under Section 315, though the time is an entitled "use;" though the candidate is "entitled" to an uncensored "use," the candidate has programs and plans to offer the electorate beyond 'platitudes," "policies," and "positions;" and you, the networks are entitled to that information in order to make a fair judgment as to the validity and value to the electorate of my proposed speech.

As above, It is the right of the public to receive suitable access to social, political, esthetic, moral, and other ideas and experience which is crucial here.

What immediately follows, for your convenience, is a partial statement of the law, citations removed, and where appropriate, my commentary added.

The Communications Act of 1934, as amended, authorizes the FCC to issue licenses to broadcast stations only if it finds that such grants will serve the public convenience, interest, or necessity.

Mass media political speech is a First Amendment Right we bequeath on our candidates for federal elective office.

Certain types of broadcasts are exempt from the equal opportunity requirements.

Under section 315, an appearance by a legally qualified candidate on any (1) bona fide newscast; (2) bona fide news interview; (3) bona fide news documentary; or (4) on-the-spot coverage of bona fide news events, is not deemed to be use of a broadcasting station for equal opportunity purposes.

Under this provision, for example, a station could not enter into a contract with a candidate stipulating that the station would not sell time to another candidate during the same time period.

Any claim of exemption on your part is clearly an First Amendment chilling, arbitrary discrimination against both the First Amendment Rights of this independent candidate for president, Michael Stephen Levinson, to deliver his independent response to the president, and the American people's First Amendment Right to hear this candidate's proposed solution to our war against al Qaeda and Taliban forces who oppose us in Afghanistan.

In the event you, the network broadcasters and or cable casters determine you are above our law and therefore willfully discriminate against candidate for president Michael Stephen Levinson, and deny this candidate for president's request for access you, the networks should be prepared to suffer the consequence which could be the revocation of your license, for your willful failure to adhere to your obligation to the American people, upon your willful suppression of the American people's paramount right to hear an independent candidate for the office of president offer his innovative solution to this vexing issue of drawing to a just conclusion this war in a foreign land to which, in fact, no other candidate for president or would be candidate for president, or member of congress, or any elected official claims to have any solution to.

The Federal Communication Commission is not yet a party to this request.

As noted above, in 2000, the Federal Communications Commission illegally and unconstitutionally amended an Act of Congress. They did this via unconstitutional earmark, slipped into an appropriations bill. FCC removed the First Amendment obligation of 356 PBS stations to air political speeches by any candidate for federal elective office.

What applies for one, applies for all. This 'earmark' whether approved by Congress or not, violates the First Amendment Right of the American people to political speech.

Therefore, the Commission, by its own hand, dissolved its jurisdiction over the adjudication of any dispute related to my, or any federal candidates First Amendment Right to give a mass media broadcast political speech, on an equal opportunity equal mass media footing, with the president of United States, which is my intent, by virtue of this Section 315 equal opportunity request for access.

The following essay, War Strategy for Victory in Afghanistan is a major element of the speech I have requested an equal opportunity to deliver. It is followed by Exit Strategy out of Iraq, which is included as we are engaged in war in Iraq, also.

Wars are always fought for economic reasons, and this one, bleeding our treasure, one million dollars per year for each additional soldier - 30 billion a year total for the proposed surge, is killing our potential for economic recovery.Â

We don't have any "military officers who are strategic leaders." There aren't any Eisenhowers, Bradleys or Pattons in our military establishment. We only have military bureaucrats who are comfortable with the military bureaucracy that is their way of job security life.

I am a candidate for president of United States.Â

The words, "Counter terrorism, counter insurgency, nation building" are the current language of bureaucracy. In Vietnam the key word, over and over, was "logistics." The idea behind the surge, that we will give the Afghan people / government time to develop their own security forces sounds like dÃ©jÃ South Vietnam all over again.

Dan Rather appeared on MSNBC Rachel Maddow a few nights ago. He said the main problems in Afghanistan, not in order of importance were the total government corruption of the "government" in Kabul, and the opium production, which is the main rural farm "product." Dan Rather remarked some of the opium money went to fund our enemies, the insurgent Taliban seeking to drive us out of Afghanistan.

Is war the game on Obama's table? Chess is the game. There is no peace resembles the plane! The way to take out the people who are trying to kill us in that theater is via drones. Drones can fly for hours without need for refueling. They are inexpensive to build. They have super live cameras so they can clearly see the enemy as a bull's eye target and the pilots operate a joy stick a half a world away.

They could be made to fly practically silent. I suspect we have the photo technology for the drones to have a "see in the dark" capability. In the event one could be shot down with a Sam missile from the ground, no one gets killed.

But there are not enough drones! Nor are there enough pilots because the military bureaucracy only allows fighter pilots to operate the drones when there are easily a half million teen age master computer game players in America who could do as well, very possibly better! Actually the other services, the army and navy are also using drones, and training younger non-flyers to operate them, but there is still a shortage.Â

With a simulation program a 17-year-old civilian game master, from his bedroom computer, could learn to perfectly land and take off a drone in two days flat. The 17 yr. old computer game master could fly the drone target and wipe out enemies all day long!

Killing someone is something the drone pilot would have to live with. When we have a firing squad, only one of the shooters has a bullet. The others on the firing line have blanks, so no one knows who actually killed the guilty convicted party.

Apply the same principal to the drones. Hooked in via Internet, we could have, all over America, game masters operating the drones after one gamester actually takes the drone off and they are airborne. Then, with enough of the drones, a thousand, not a hundred, we can patrol every road and guard the treacherous border between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The president of United States could ORDER every plane manufacturer to build drones 24 / 7!

The border between Pakistan and Afghanistan is treacherous for our troops on the ground, but for a drone the playing field is leveled. It stands to reason anyone crossing that border, either way, from Afghanistan to Pakistan is smuggling drugs, or heading to Afghanistan to kill Americans. With near silent flying drones we take them all out!

Every road going from where our troops are stationed into the rural areas can be monitored from above and we can pick off one or two Taliban at a time. The word would spread amongst the Taliban soldiers, who fight for a payroll that at any time they can be killed, from above. The Taliban enemy would be pinned down so we can occupy all of the opium poppy fields, pay for the crop and put the Taliban out of business. It would not be long before Taliban would cease to exist. With enough drones anyone and every single Taliban recruit who left Pakistan for Afghanistan would not return home.Â

A president who is a leader would tell the "military" that that is what we are going to do. Our air force military is opposed to this solution because they only want experienced fighter pilots operating their drones, nor are they pushing to order more drones demanding, when in fact, via remote a half a world away the experienced air force fighter pilots are really just playing a computer game for real.

With 20 different civilian kid (master gamesters) operating each of the drones, the actual kid whose fire button fired would not be known. The kills would be a we, not a "me." That's better, easier for our kids to absorb and live with.Â

What I or any other person seriously intending on becoming the next president of United States sees or plans is a notable issue, worthy of your consideration.Â

Besides the potential for development or pipe line transportation of natural resources, like natural gas and oil, the other issue is the Afghanistan economic monopoly of the world's opium poppy which is distilled into heroin right on the farm! That is the only issue, driving the everyday fighting, not the future developments of natural resources!

Every time you pull up at a Stop and Go in America, to get gas, or a coffee, or cigarettes, outside a few feet away from the door someone is hanging out. That person is dealing crack from Columbia, or heroin, from opium poppy grown in Afghanistan. Control of that opium inspires and funds the Taliban. The opium / heroin sold in America, one million $2 bags a day, funds the Taliban.

This unremarked criminal drug harmony is taking place from sea to shining sea. When Barky Obama's oldest daughter comes home from school with an ever so slight droop in her eyes, from a morning snort with one of her friends, then maybe our president will get wise!

When more than one million pre-teen and early teen agers are getting into heroin, telling themselves, "I'm in control, I only use twice a week," then America will begin to see again the flowering of out-of-control crime someone bound to the drug is willing to commit, to get their drug. Ignoring the real issue, which is the opium poppy, will bring on the unnecessary mayhem we might soon be facing.

We can occupy all the poppy fields, and pay the farmers cash in advance (CIA). That must be our policy! This occupation can take place, without shooting, over a ten-day period. In his speech, President gave one line to the "drug trade."

We adopt this opium poppy strategy, as explained, or we risk another terrorist attack in America, rivaling the 9 / 11 attack, because the money needed to make another attack will come from the sale of the opium / heroin around the world. Should such an attack take place in the midst of natural resource developments, then what?

Were a potential attack, sponsored by the proceeds of their opium / heroin distribution, the only issue on the table it would be good enough reason for your close attention! The heroin being sold on every street corner will continue as long as our president casts a blind eye on the real enemy.

The key to winning Afghanistan and Pakistan, to dissolving al Qaeda and Taliban, is controlling the opium the Afghanis meticulously grow. On this planet, world wide, opium is the grand poppa of all opiates. That dirt-cheap heroin readily bought every day on the streets of Manhattan and Washington DC, on the streets of Kabul, and by the barracks' gates where our troops are billeted, began its life a sleepy Pashtun poppy, milked in Afghanistan, oceans away.

That 17% pure heroin bag; available on select street corners in every major city in the western world, started out an opium poppy grown in Afghanistan. You first saw the rich Afghanistan poppy fields in "The Wizard of Oz."Â

93% of the world's opium is grown and refined into heroin right on the Afghani farms! That is the land we need to occupy!

They Afghanis are not such a backward unsophisticated country as rigid status quo bureaucrats are apt to paint them. The farmers grow the highest quality most potent opium that yields the most heroin, world wide, similar to our Iowa farmer's ability to grow bountiful crops of corn.Â

They also grow the most potent marijuana on the planet. The Afghanistan farmers' capability is similar to our Iowa farmer's ability to grow bountiful crops of corn, which our farmers export worldwide. Our farmers get a much better deal for their corn than the Afghani farmers get for their crop of opium poppy.

Bill Gates must marvel at their opium / heroin market share. Monopoly was his goal, too!Â

The poppy crop is irreplaceable, worldwide; a blessing for all sides, especially us, because controlling the opium poppy fields means we will have taken over the main source of income for all the barbarian Taliban, the terrorist al Qaeda operations in Afghanistan and all the neighboring countries, including all of the Western Hemisphere cartels and subtle European drug dealerships.

The opium / heroin must be our focus. Why does our government fail to see this? Why does our military allow the Afghani convoys carrying tons of heroin to pass the checkpoints? Who is paid off?

The heroin lifeblood for terrorists and drug cartels is smuggled out of Afghanistan, throughout Europe, with tons, tons going by plane and ship to South America where, repackaged, the heroin's origin is disguised so no one gets wise; and from there, routed to Mexican cartels, and from Mexico, into United States, to be sold in our ghettos and suburban neighborhoods and school yards.Â

For the cartels this wholesale heroin represents billions of dollars in retail business. Billions of underground criminal, and terrorist dollars, our schoolyards only one of the cartels retail outlets! The Mexican dealers, sent to every city by the cartels are told to insure there aren't any shootings over distributorship territory, as they are quietly building a repeat steady business. Because they have a monopoly on the heroin they can carefully develop their sales force of unemployed school dropouts, which is what they are doing.

Knowing the destination for much of the heroin is America, why does our military ignore the convoys of trucks laden with heroin and allow them to pass? Why not seize the truckloads of duffels, slice them open and dump the contents to blow in the wind? The answer is $$$$ in lots of pockets, regardless of turban or uniform!

We could take these convoys out from above with the drones. Why aren't these orders being given.

The key to stuffing Taliban and al Qaeda, eradicating all of their corruption of Afghanistan, is to choke the opium supply the Afghan farmers are world wide famous for; choke the supply which would wipe out the opium / heroin smuggling trade and choke their criminal customers on our side of the sea.

We don't have 68,000 troops in uniform, stationed in South America, chopping down the Columbian jungle to get at the cocaine plantations. That is not happening. But we do have 68,000 troops stationed in Afghanistan, 30,000 more on the way and the opium poppy strategy carefully explained here will save most of their lives.

Surely, we can agree we do not want to see any more American lives lost or blood shed.

The Taliban's and al Qaeda's end in the opium/heroin trade nets millions of dollars, peanuts in the big picture, falafel on the table for Taliban's "freedom fighters" billeted over the border, in Pakistan; and money for the families of al Qaeda's suicide bombers throughout the Middle East.

For the international criminal drug cartels the Afghanistan opium / heroin wholesale / retail is between 500 and 600 billion illegitimate unwashed tax-free dollars year in and year out!

Without the opium / heroin trade, al Qaeda and Taliban operations would be decimated. The Western Hemisphere drug cartels would lose their hundreds of billions of dollars and would be facing their own recession. Street corner drug dealers would be signing up for unemployment checks. All of the illegal heroin in the United States would dry up as the pipeline for the heroin would be destroyed!Â

That is exactly what we want.

In Iraq, whoever is running the roads, wins. With ten thousand off road quad cab American trucks, manned by four armed "volunteer" Americans getting $28 per hour, the trucks, each equipped with CB radios, binoculars and police radar guns, could seal all of Iraq's borders. Oil by the truck tanker full would not be "smuggled " out to Syria, to fund the insurgents, and the border between Iraq and Iran would be sealed, so suicide bombers and IED devices would not be smuggled in as is a daily event today.

Â In Afghanistan, Taliban also controls all of the roads, so every land patrol is a potential death drive, a wasting of our blood and treasure! The opium dollar is fueling both the war and the Taliban structure, enabling them to strike from any roadside at will! We spend one million dollars on a huge truck to sweep the road for buried bombs, and the Taliban spends ten dollars on the remote detonator device, perhaps an additional $20 on the explosives that at least disable the truck.

The numbers are way in their favor. We are spending a thousand times more money so even winning we lose!

Afghanistan is a poor country with a rich culture. Whoever of the warlords controls the opium harvest will have battled for that right. The hardy Afghani farmers get only enough to live decently and plant their fresh poppy.

The Taliban "freedom fighters" would leave for home in a heartbeat, were they not getting fed and allowed to while away the days smoking the black Afghani hashish. No food no money no fight. The newly chosen Taliban "leader" in Pakistan has a payroll he must meet. The opium proceeds cover the Taliban payroll!

President Obama is our Commander-in-Chief, the civilian boss in charge of our ribbon shirts, but General Stanley McChrystal and his military bureaucrats, and all the retired cable news talking heads grousing every day are all misreading and misleading the Afghanistan war.

Wars are fought for economic reasons. The poppy fields fuel criminal enterprises worldwide. Control the poppy fields and all the criminal activities worldwide are thwarted!

A recent Wall Street Journal article: Top Troop Request Exceeds 60,000 by Peter Spiegal and Yochi Dreazen stated,Â

"White House officials familiar with deliberations said that while some elements of the Taliban were inclined to harbor al Qaeda, which operated freely in Afghanistan through 2001, other members were focused on Afghanistan's internal politics and much less likely to support the international terror group."

Oh! The Taliban is more interested in securing seats on the local neighbor hooded school boards? Hardly! Their Afghanistan infrastructure has one purpose: controlling the opium poppy during and after the harvest!

The Taliban differs from al Qaeda in one respect. Taliban are criminal drug dealers hiding behind religion and oppressing the local people they believe is the key to their continuing success in controlling the opium / heroin, so they can send their kids to Ivy League schools, whereas Al Qaeda smuggles heroin to fund senseless political attacks throughout the Middle East, and to plan another 9/11 which cannot be accomplished without many millions of dollars.Â

A few years ago a Taliban leader came to Texas. Whatever the official reason for the "trip," talks about a potential oil or gas pipe lines, another reason was to have some lengthy conversations on throw away cell phones with Mexican and Columbian Cartel officials about shipping refined heroin instead of tell tale smelly opium. The Columbians got into the act because no one would suspect heroin originating in faraway Afghanistan would be round-about smuggled into South America, and from there, north to Mexico and then into USA.

In that sense, the oil pipeline talks were a cover. The Taliban came to Texas to solidify the opium / heroin pipeline. Moolah for the mullah.Â

We don't need to build an Afghanistan army. The unaligned unofficial Afghani militias know how to fight.Â

With a little structure and dollar support at the bottom, at the farm level, the Afghani people will protect themselves. Abraham Lincoln established a sea embargo to win the Civil War. Without supplies by ship from Europe, the Confederate Army was doomed.

Our troops get killed on border patrols between Pakistan and Afghanistan to protect our way of life across the ocean. Yet a stone's throw away, Mother Nature's opium is grown for the criminal and international terrorist's gain? How can our military be so dumb as to allow this to go on, creating millions of terrorist jihad dollars?

The only thing going across that Pakistan / Afghanistan border are paid fighters and convoys of drug smugglers hauling their cargo. The Afghan opium is key to everything happening there! We can eliminate all the border travel with 24 / 7 invincible drones from above!

We own the opium and control the poppy fields and the whole country is ours. We don't need the roads. We can resupply our troops dug in with nighttime helicopter delivery!Â

Opium control by us means renegade Taliban, al Qaeda terrorists, and warlords are on the road again. Skedaddled or killed.

(I like the idea of not killing anybody.)

Though I am an insurgent candidate for president and bring to the table a Vehicle for World Peace, my candidacy is not the issue; only what "eye" say is the issue. The opium production and our clear ability to control that opium, is the main and only topic.

Our guys must begin digging foxholes in every opium field, making Cash In Advance deals CIA with the Afghanis we are purchasing their opium crop for top dollar, in raw opium form, while paying them rent for digging our fox holes on the edges of their poppy fields.Â

â€¨â€¨ The farmers won't have to brew the black sap into a dangerous snowy heroin powder, so they are poppy plentiful, an ounce or two included for the house, compliments of us.

Raw opium isn't dangerous. You won't kill yourself smoking opium the way you can so easily overdose from a heroin syringe, so we want their whole opium crop raw, just like unrefined brown sugar, and we will pay the refined opium heroin price, which is similar to tacking on an additional 65 cents to a bushel of Iowa corn.

The war momentum will immediately shift! Once we are digging in on the poppy fields, everything changes because without the proceeds from smuggling the heroin, the Taliban will whither away!

Instead of Taliban's "freedom fighters" picking us off every other day as we patrol the dangerous Afghanistan border, we will occupy the opium poppy fields and wait for Taliban to show up should they dare, our invited guests for a steel jacket lunch.

The key to Afghan quality of life for Taliban, thugs without a country when we defeat them, to shipping their kids off to Ivy League schools is based on who gets to stash the cash from Afghanistan's opium crop.

Would that be Karzai and his drug dealing family in Kabul? As soon as we instigate the above strategy Karzai and his government officials will protest, because they also benefit from the opium / heroin smuggling and sales.