I am right there with you. It is time to take our country back.

Friends, this Direct Democracy is only a tiny tiny sliver of what this movement is a part of! We are witnessing nothing less than the end of the Age of Reason and the labor pains of the Age of Wisdom. The Internet changed everything, and yes, one of the biggest is that it is finally possible to abandon the ridiculous notion of "Representative" Democracy. The con job idea that my one vote would allow my voice to be represented in the legislative process has lost it's sustenance.

But why not also Direct Corporate Governance? After all, the conceit there is that shareholders "own" the corporation. But you have to be a really rich investor to have any voice at all. Today, it should be possible to give this power back to the people who own the corporation.

As for consumption, indeed I think consumers are becoming wiser too all over the world. We see wiser citizens in the Middle East, in India, all over the world today, who have loudly proclaimed their vision of peaceful change; we see wiser choices in diet; we see wiser choices in all kinds of fields of human activity, all over the world. We also see, if you pay attention to these things, an unprecendted explosion of new scientific discoveries, on a daily basis. That too has come from the unprecedented flood of information and data the computer has made possible.

All these changes, and more, have been unleashed by the Information revolution. Information is power. In the now ending Age of Reason, information was controlled by the few, who could thus manipulate the rest to suit their own interests. Governments are withering in many countries under the glare of the transparency. Today wars and protests in the farthest corners of the globe play out blow by blow in our homes and our smart phones! Just 20 years ago the government would have controlled exactly what we saw and heard about these and other events.

To cut it short for now, if there is an overarching theme this movement should be about is : Empowerment through Transparency.

Just last month, Anna Hazare of India led a mass movement in India to force the government to enact a "Public Ombudsman" body, with power to investigate ALL levels of government. A few years ago, India enacted a "$Right to Information" law, which allows every citizen to submit an inquiery to any governemnt agency, and get a respinse in a few weeks at the most. The state of Bihar in India has transformed itself through such measures from the armpit of India to a shining jewel of public administration.

And today, the Chief Minister of this state in India has proposed that public corporations be subject to a similar law. My point here not being that this movement should look at what India or any country is doing, but only to suggest that this general direction, that of INCREASING ACCESS TO INFORMATION that enter into organizational and institutional decisions, is the substrate of ALL that the people are demanding. Direct Democracy would require, for example, detailed and accurate information streamed into our digital devices on a daily basis. And if we had access to what the banks were doing with our money, how much risk they were taking, I suspect we would have avoided the rape of the people we endured. DIRECT EVERYTHING! Change the decision-making paradigm in ALL areas of "public" life, including consumption and production. Are teachers paid too much? We can decide for ourselves, thank you, just give us the budget numbers and the minutes of all your meetings... ! You claim your product is good for me to eat? Just tell me exactly how you made it and what you put in it, and what you discussed in making those decisions. I'll decide whether or not to purchase it. Don't try to hoodwink me with slick adverts, save that money and reduce your prices.

As much as I love the idea of direct democracy, it doesn't seem like it works from a practical standpoint. How do you deal with the uninformed voter? When they vote on a bill, how are you expecting people to read several hundred pages of it with in their already tight schedules? We can barely get people to participate now, how would we prevent that? I'm in favor of fixing the system with an instant-runoff voting system, as it still allows people to handle the day to day activities but gives people an extraordinarily better chance of getting a candidate the want.

Oh come on, the same people who make uninformed decisions are the ones who will never be the ones who make the difference in Direct Democracy. You HAVE to believe that there is a growing number of people who. when empowered with information, WILL educate themselves and make informed choices, precisely because they are wiser. YOU are one of them, your ability to make wise choices has increased exponentially in the last decade not because you suddenly got the religion but because you have access to information -- about the event and about what those whose opinions you matter to you have to say about it and as well the opinions of millions of people who you don't really know and will never meet face to face, through the Internet. We got a "practical, pragmatic" president in Obama and where did it get us? We have to stop viewing what is happening through the lens of the past. (To be fair, I think Obama is focused on a vision which rrequires him to let things get worse before they get better, but that's politics and this is not about politics as such but the underlying information paradigm)

I also believe, for example, that the Age of Wisdom will have as its chief development, biologically/consciousness-wise, the abiltiy of our children's children to "know" Math the way they learn and "know" language today. The miraculous ability of the human child, everywhere in the world, to "pick up" a complex language competently enough that it will suffice for most of what it takes to survive in the Age of Reason, in 2 years between the age of 2 and 4, was not always built into out genes. It entered into our genes through the collective human experience of many humndreds of generations.

The Age of Reason was dominated by this new power. The Age of Wisdom will be dominated by a similar ability humans will have with Math... An intutive grasp not only with the basic stuff like addition and subtraction (which, by the way, already take very little focused attention, at the right age, to learn), but stuff like Diffrential Calculus and Topography. Our children's children will be doing these things in their head, like we add and subtract and multiply -- small numbers! (Don't feel stupid, though :-), you're a whole lot smarter than your great-great-great-great grandfather -- and perhaps your father too!

Of course I don't have any "data" to back me up. I do have a very active imagination, fed by reading something new everyday, and a very insistent intuition.

It is nonetheless important to not get too cocky and full of oneself in the current movement, more so than in previous revolutions. This is not a local revolution, it is a global movement. It is tempting to feel "ownership" and feel important that one is part of the wave, but we err grieviously if we don't recognize that this is a 21st Century movement, global by nature and thus fundamentally different than all previous movements, and perhaps only belated linking up to something much bigger going on. Bigger than the participants can attribute to anything specific in their lives, except increased knowledge of the world around them.

Oh and by the way, the reason Laws and bills are hundreds or thousands of pages long is because their main purpose is to obscure and hoodwink, not to share with the voters what it really seeks to do... The basic "law" of this country is the Constitution -- all 20-30 pages of it! Require transparency and see the whole thing collapse, secrecy is the tool by which we are manipulated and have always been. But transparency not through Wikileaks and hacking, transparency in the very principle of governance, government and corporate. Transparency as Policy, founded on a new consciousness of our inextricable connections to each other as well as all of life, and beyond. When one hurts others, one hurts one's children. I suggest the new consciousness will see that as self evident.

Yes, we are dealing here with a shift of a whole PARADIGM. The horizon of possibility for the human species is about to change. Petitions and demands are only variations in the same logical level that created the problems in the first place i.e. a ruling class and a sleeping beauty class.
I understand Pregxi's point, it's scary and looks chaotic. But we have to believe in ourselves now, we are waking up. We won't be the same morons any more.

AND we are going to DISCOVER other ways and other possibilities that now are closed because we don't trust and because the 1% of those berlusconis are in charge.

@withefeather: Thanks. We shall prevail and reclaim our rights. Simply because we are the 99%.

@durlabhij: I love your attitude and perspective. Direct everything sounds awesome! Empowerment through transparency is indeed the way through which we will finally succeed to create a truly civilized world.

@Pregxi: Fear not. As Durlabhij pointed out, there is no need to have laws written over hundreds of pages. Actually I believe that when the people become in charge of the legislative system, there won't be a need for that many laws. A well drafted Constitution should provide ground rules sufficient for everyone to live in peace and harmony without the need for heaps of laws to be added on top of it. Nevertheless, once the new system is in place, it would be wise to make sure that civic classes are brought back to the schools. In direct democracy, the education of the people should become a priority. And remember that as long as we give our power away to representatives, we will be treated like children by those we elected. We need to become responsible adults. Ad we will.

@dran: Yes we must believe in ourselves! This is the path of empowerment.

To all of you guys who wish to see the birth of Direct Democracy: Do get involved with your thoughts and ideas. Visit http://www.i-govern.org and help build the platform. The more people participate, the better the end result :)

To do what the good guys above propose will require either a revolution or constitutional convention. Ok, many will go for one or the other option. But will the country at large? Do most of the people want this change, from republic to true democracy? If majority don't want it, what then? Just curious.

@marrand: if the majority of the people wishes to keep electing representatives, so be it. That is what democracy is about.
Nevertheless in some countries, direct democracy will be embraced. These countries will lead the way by example and soon enough the rest of the World will follow. Look at Switzerland for example. They are one of the nation closest to direct democracy. Since they started in the 1800's they have been one of the most peaceful country in the world. During this economic crisis, while most of Europe is hurting, their economy and currency are once more a refuge for investors.
Making the switch from representative to direct democracy can be done easily, legally and peacefully. Calling a constitutional convention could be a way to get there but we have to bear in mind that the amendments written by the convention would have to be ratified by our elected representatives. Since we are trying to reduce their powers, I am not sure that we can count on the current ones to ratify such changes. Having said that in the next elections, we don't have to keep electing people who would be against direct democracy. People could run for office with the goal to ratify direct democracy and thereby end their office: They would be the last congressmen and women. The Heroes of Direct Democracy.
The other way to make the switch would be to call a national popular referendum where the nation would asked to choose between representative and direct democracy. Since direct democracy is not about being republican or democrat or libertarian or anything else but about empowering everyone, I have faith that a majority of people would rather vote for themselves collectively rather than for a small group of privileged politicians. Especially when the latter is responsible for the huge mess this world is in...
;)

For info: The people of Iceland following the financial crash decided to change the way their country was run. They first protested and demanded the resignation of the executive branch on the grounds that they had not been able to protect their country against the dangers of speculative finance. Once they got them to resign, they demanded that their deposed leaders be judged along with the ceos of the major icelandic banks got put in trial for their wrongdoings. Finally they got together online and rewrote their constitution! Yep that's right. Check it out. The power of the 99%
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/09/iceland-crowdsourcing-constitution-facebook

This can work - but why only for one country? This is a global movement. We should demand direct democracy for all citizens of this Earth.

Dealing with the uninformed citizen? You cant ever expect every one to be equally enlightened. But it is possible to request from any voter that s/he looks at all sides of the coin before voting takes place.

For that reason it is important to have news provided by media which is truly independent of state AND commerce. There can be no financial gain for the media in news reporting when it comes to issues that are of public interest.

We managed to seperate the judiciary from legislation in the past. We fought for centuries to have the church stay out of state matters. Now it is time to seperate the media from state and commerce to reclaim education, health and science for the public good!

No more lobbying by capital using media. No more lobbying for corporate greed in parliament. No more privatising services and resources needed for the common good.

And we need all of that on a GLOBAL scale. Not just the US or Europe.

@fritzohle: Well it is not just for one country. It could be adopted by any country where a majority of people would wish for such a change to be implemented.
The idea is to encourage anyone in any country to participate in the definition, the design, the building and the promotion of direct democracy.
The online platform we would build would be open source and any country would be free to download the code and implement it on their national servers.
You are spot on regarding the media. Communication needs to be regulated. We can not have media empires such as what we have now. They need to be broken down in smaller pieces.
Ethics need to become the central pillar of journalism not profits.

fritzkohle says "this can work - but why only for one country?". altruistSpark maintains that in some countries direct democracy will be embraced. Examples are given: Switzerland, Iceland, and may I add Finland to the mix too.

But I see a structural problem, not merely the opposition of the wealthy capitalists. The problem is that of scale. It's easy to operate a direct democracy in a small nation. Think of it this way. There are only 24 hours in a day. Now you want to squeeze dialogues of multitudes into this day in order to discuss and resolve many problems. Even in Iceland, with less than 1 million, many won't be heard even if they deserve to be heard. Why? Because of those deserving, of those well informed, many are shy and not pushy and easily outshouted by the more aggressive ones. Human nature comes into play. That's the achilles heel of direct democracy.

It's not as bad in small societies, and as we have seen the idea is promising there. But I can't see how this can work in a country of 300 million. Some people already complained about information overload. Can you imagine this overload if you have to consider the opinions and ideas of huge numbers of well deserved and well informed citizens? It's not a matter of technology of spreading the ideas; no, no. It's a matter of one mind being able to absorb all.

Thus, given our personal limitations but not giving up the right to be heard, we gather into smaller groups and elect one person speak on our behalf. If we have enough of those selected to speak for all the groups (as we have now), there will be a huge variety of views presented but not huge enough for us to digest and evaluate.

But some see a problem. Yes, there is a problem, and again, not necessarily arising from greedy billionaires. It's the press, the ever powerful media who insist, nay, demand that it will be THEY who will interpret, summarize and present the ideas worthy of our attention. Yes, we need them to spread the news; no, we don't need them to tell us how to think.

I agree: we can visualize transformation to direct democracy for USA. In fact, altruistSpark's suggestion of "People could run for office with the goal to ratify direct democracy and thereby end their office: They would be the last congressmen and women" seems a practical way to get there. But the problems are so huge that I wonder if we should spend all our effort on this, rather than focus on specifics, like the righting the wrongs perpetrated by the Wall Street Bankers.

@marrand: Yes there are indeed some challenges. Scale is amongst them. But if we work together, I am convinced that we will find the best ways to tackle challenges. We should not be scared by the obstacles.

For example, as far as scale is concerned here are a couple of ways to address the issue:

- Impact Study:
Since a piece of legislation may have various impacts on a nation and its people, it is important that everyone understand the consequences of their choices prior to voting. For this reason, every draft should be accompanied by a study of the potential impacts of the proposed law: social, health, economic, financial, environmental consequences; interactions with other laws; potential alternatives. Such requirement would ensure that only adequately researched drafts may enter the legislative debate.

- Co-Sponsors:
Prior to being considered for entering the legislative debate, legislative drafts should reach sufficient level of support from others: a draft should be co-sponsored by a minimum number of people.

- Argument Mapping:
In order to make the debating process easier to follow, we could imagine using argument mapping features for a visual representation of the debate. [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_map ]

- Time & space: With an online platform, the legislative process no longer requires participants to all meet at the same time in one place. The process could last over a longer period of time (to be determined) to allow everyone to make up their mind.

The above are just some of the ideas I had. [ http://www.i-govern.org/home/en/open-congress/arena/view-ideas/90-a-more-democratic-legislative-process ]

I am convinced that many people could find additional solutions.

If we focus our attention on individual smaller issues, we maybe able to feel good about ourselves for a brief period of time. If we focus our attention on bringing direct democracy in the best possible manner, we will be ensuring that NEVER again politicians will be able to betray us at the benefit of the corporations.

Politicians mostly think short term. We the people should think long term.

@altruistSpark I agree with you - this could be adopted for each country. and @marrand - yes, countries such as switzerland are great examples for direct democracy.

I do not consider scale to be an issue though. Important decisions need more than 24 hours deliberation and applying the idea of altruistSpark's argument mapping should help all stakeholders to get a grasp on any choices to be made and then vote accordingly. all of this a huge technological challenge - but nevertheless doable. technology or sclae is not the stumbling block as i see.

long term thinking, free and independent media, accountable politicians and public servants free from corruption and lobbyists working within a transparent system - thats the real problem. our current political leadership must go including the administration that supports them - it needs to be rebuild from scratch. and one of the first tasks the new system needs to execute is the implementation of direct democracy, separation of commerce from education, health, public transport, science and media in areas that directly touch upon the needs of the public good.

@fritzkohle: Yes we do need long term thinking, free and independent media, accountable politicians and public servants free from corruption. Once we have direct democracy, we can vote laws to ensure such goals.
We should build the system collaboratively asap without further waiting. Politicians will not lead the way to direct democracy. They would rather we never went there or even thought about it...
Once the system is ready we can ask for a national popular referendum in order to get it implemented (if the majority indeed wishes to do so).
We no longer need political representatives. We are collectively a lot smarter than they could ever be. They are like the dinosaurs before the ice age: unaware of their impending doom.

I like the idea of Direct Democrarcy, but I do not think it is practical in a nation so large. HOWEVER, that doesn't mean we cannot try to make practical moves toward Democracy (we don't even have that now). I would propose as follows:

1. End the Electoral College. States electing the President? What kind of silly idea is this? It is simply a hold over from the days of the Articles of Confederation and needs to be swept away just as the Electoral College for election of Senators was eliminated almost 100 years ago.

2. Dylan Radigan's getting money out of Politics. See http://www.getmoneyout.com/. Get the money out and the people will rule again.

3. Stop the 60 vote rule in the Senate. The is non-democratic and has hindered the operation of our government for far too long.

4. Even after we replaced the "Aritcles of Confederation" with our Current Constitution in 1787, then fought a Civil War in the 1860s; now in the 21st Century; our States still seem to think they are seperate nations. It is time to strip these state governments of their power and reduce them to only being sub-governments of the central federal government. These subgovernments (state/county/city) would simply be sub-levels of the federal government and could have limited powers to shape local policy based on the desires of the people in those areas while at the same time, being restricted from interfering with the rights of other areas (similar to violations of the interstate commerce clause). They would bring power to the people, working right up the line; instead of obstructing the power of the people as they currently do.

This would require four constitution amendments. Amendments in rapid succession have happened before (1860s and 1950s-1960s). It is time for these fundamental changes.

Lastly, we need more laws for transparency at every level as well as more money for education (so the people can understand this new transparent government). I DO NOT WANT SMALL GOVERNMENT. THE CONSTITUTION STARTS WITH THE WORDS "WE THE PEOPLE." I WANT A GOVERNMENT OF 300,000,000 (I believe this is close to our current population). ALL THE PEOPLE!!! THOSE WHO WANT SMALL GOVERNMENT REALLY MEAN THAT THEY WANT TO BE ABLE TO DO WHATEVER THEY WANT, REGARDLESS OF THE COST TO OTHERS....

John P. Coble, JD, CPA, LLM
Attorney at Law

@jpcoble: Thank you for your input.

Direct democracy can become far more practical than the current system. Since we now have a strong technological culture, I am convinced that we can collaboratively build the most practical tools ever created by people for the purpose of democratic governance. I have great faith in the people and their collective sum of knowledge, skills & wisdom connected to the Internet. Look at LINUX and other superb open source projects.

The current system is the one that is no longer practical since it exposes democracy to the risk of being corrupted by lobbies. And democracy has been and is being corrupted today.

You proposed 4 initiatives and I propose that direct democracy will empower everyone to introduce, debate and vote on all initiatives.

If you truly want a government of 300,000,000 people, direct democracy is the only way to achieve this permanently. Representative democracy will always be a government of a few hundreds. That's a simple fact. No matter what angle you may look at it. The initiatives you proposed won't change this reality.

Representative democracy is a 200 years old operating system.
Direct democracy shall be the operating system of the 21st century.
The people people occupying the streets are all asking for more democracy...
Time for an upgrade!

Read the definition of representitive in the dictionary; Democracy is not a government in and of itself. It requires a host government, such as a republic to carry out its wishes. Democracy is the Spirit of Equality ; The eye's ear's and mind of government. Not letter of the law rules and regulations print on paper laws that should be routinely reviewed by the people, for clarifacation, correction, or outright abolishment

@evolution101: I do know the definition of democracy, republic and representation. I am not sure if I understand your point. Can you please elaborate?

Thank You altruistSpark.

Though I do strongly admire what the Linux/LAMP (LAMP=Linux/Apache/MySQL - Perl/Python/PHP for those that are non-programmers) guys have done and do see it as an example of the future of our economic system; I myself, am an ASP.Net guy. I am an ASP.Net developer/hobbyist because I prefer the "order" and "standardization" that the Microsoft system allows as opposed to what I fear as chaotic crowdsourcing that I would not be able to keep up with (Red Hat, Solaris, Ubuntu - I get confused).

Open Source is great. It is one of the few really bright spots in our economy. The whole idea of People doing things more for the purpose of making a really great product as opposed to the mere making of money for themselves is wonderful! The way developers help each other is wonderful. However, I am not sure that could translate into a governmental system for all the sub-groups in our society.

Lastly, we do have access to wonderful collabortive tools through the internet, BUT these tools are very vulnerable. Our cyber-networks are constantly under attack. Set up an FTP server and watch to see how often your system is attacked (from all over the world). I realized how nasty a place the internet could be when I was writing programs for the mortgage litigation that has been going on over the past couple of years. Rumor has it that some of the mortgage companies had hired former NSA employees to hack the systems of lawyers. One of my servers that was holding other Attorneys' data was attacked and severely damaged. These things are very difficult to track. I am going off on a tangent here; to make the point that organizations such as Anonymous are not for the purpose of offensive attack against these corporations; in reality, Anonymous is probably more of a retalitory organization.

Back to the point, while we can plan movements based on our collaborative technology, I do not think it would be prudent at this point to build a government based upon it...... But, some day in the future..... just maybe it will be something that can work...

John P. Coble, JD, CPA, LLM
Attorney at Law & part-time software developer

@jpcoble: I would like to invite you to step back and take some distance for a moment.

Why do we witness negative & destructive behaviors in society? Simply because of the inequalities that have been created by our current socioeconomic system based on paradigms of lack, limitations and competition. As long as society does not address this, as long as the gap between the 1% and the 99% keeps growing, we will witness acts of theft and destruction.

Once direct democracy has been implemented, the people (not just politicians) will be able to co-create a society where new paradigms can be embraced. The pillars of direct democracy being collaboration, transparency, and participation, I contend that in a direct democratic society, we will see a dramatic decrease in the number of people wishing to steal or destroy.

Why would anyone wish to attack & destroy a system created by the people to empower everyone to contribute & participate?

Politicians, corporations and domestic intelligence agencies may try to attack this system because it will bring an end to their hegemony. They will also try to convince us (most likely through fear) that we should not aspire to build such a system.

On the other hand, the People & organizations such as Anonymous would most likely do everything in their power to build, implement & protect such a system because it will bring more democracy and more freedom to the 99%.

So John, fear not. Have faith in the people. We can and we should plan to build direct democracy as soon as possible so that we can address collaboratively the core issues that bring people to commit acts of theft and destruction.

It would not be prudent to stay put and allow for the current political system to stay unchanged.

I don't elect anyone to "decide" any thing for me unless I'm dead or incapacitated : The job of Representatives like the Executor of a will. : Is to carry out the "express will" of the person(s) they represent; and speak the words they want; with the meaning they intended: Representative(s)/Spokesperson(s) are not leaders of the people; they are followers, of the "Peoples Will" and required too carry it out. Only in case of death; or an emergency, should a representative substitute their own will/desire. We already have" True Democracy In Our Law" we only need to apply/ enforce It. "direct democracy" as you call it, has no one to carry out or enforce a vote. And no recognition of the fact that sometimes there is not enough time to hold a vote before taking action; and you some votes need to be carried out on a routine basis.

You might enjoy checking out my proposal. It is under the discossion topic "True Democracy" I too believe a direct democracy is possible

@evolution101: When you elect a representative, how can you be sure that each time the vote a law they represent your interests. Do you check on all the votes they make in Congress?
The system we have is far removed from True Democracy. Otherwise the police would not be hurting peaceful protesters.

Since I vote 3rd party only, and don't vote for members of the democratic or repulican parties I haven't elected anyone : but you answered your own question; you should be aware of what anyone claiming to represent you does in your name. I would also like to see many changes/improvements in our system; but I know if people don't first understand/support Equal Rights; including their Equal Rights to Public Property such as the parks; in which they are demonstrating, you can't hope to build a better Democracy. If they don't obey the laws which are already on the books; they won't respect future laws/changes.

alturistSpark, your idea of direct democracy sounds good but presently such a democracy based on the current technology could be easily hijacked. An idea I recently came across and started a discussion on called 'The American Liberty True Democracy Party' suggests having representatives who are bound by contract to uphold the party principles and having the party members of a representative's district vote on the issues presented to the representative to determine how the representative is to vote on the issue.

America is not a Democracy - We are a Constitutional Republic (with democratically elected representatives) If people understood what our system is and how far it has been usurped we may not have found ourselves in the mess we are in today.
The money power elite and their MSM and government minions push the MEME that we are a Democracy because it serves their purpose.

THE ROOT OF OUR SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, MILITARISTIC WOW'S IS AN EVIL MONETARY SYSTEM. EVERYTHING ELSE IS A SYMPTOM OR AN ACTION THAT SUPPORTS IT. AT THE HEART OF THIS SYSTEM ARE THE CENTRAL BANKS; THE FED, THOSE WHO CONTROL IT AND THEIR DISHONEST, DEBT BASED MONETARY POLICIES. AS SUCH; REGULATIONS, LAWS, THE CAPTURE OF GOVERNMENT AND REGULATORS, AND THE SUSPENSION OF ACCOUNTING RULES IS FOR THEIR BENEFIT. AN ACCOUNT OF THE PEOPLE HAS NO PLACE IN IT. INDEED, IF THE PEOPLE WERE ITS PRIMARY CONCERN, THE WORLD WOULD BE MORE FREE, LESS VIOLENT AND MORE PROSPEROUS.

THE PRIVATELY HELD FED IS THE TOP REGULATOR OF ITS TBTF OWNERS AND MEMBER BANKS. IT'S CREATION OF MONEY OUT OF THIN AIR; LOANED, AT INTEREST, TO THE SOVEREIGN AND ITS FRACTIONAL RESERVE SYSTEM IS THE MOST INSIDIOUS OF CRIMINAL PONZIS FOR WHICH ALL ITS FAUX REGULATIONS AND FINANCIAL MISALLOCATIONS FOLLOW.

THE FED'S FIAT PETRO-DOLLAR AND IT’S DEBT SLAVERY ECONOMIC MODEL, IS THE MOST POWERFUL CENTRALIZING FORCE KNOWN. IT IS THE GENESIS OF FUNDING FOR THE ELITE MONEY POWER, THEIR CONTRIVED SCHEMES OF CONTROL, AND A SYSTEM OF INCREASING DEBT AND GLOBAL WAR.

TO FREE OURSELVES, RESTORE FREE MARKET CAPITALISM AND REESTABLISH OUR CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC, WE MUST FIRST ELIMINATE THE MOST PERNICIOUS CORRUPTING FORCE OF ALL.

END THE FED!

See:
Money Power And The Central Bank: Life Is But A MEME - http://notionalvalue.blogspot.com/2011/11/once-upon-meme-for-most-part-shallow.html

END THE FED: THE FIRST STEP IN RESTORING OUR CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC - http://notionalvalue.blogspot.com/2011/10/end-fed-first-step-in-restoring-our.html

14 Reasons Why We Should Nationalize The Federal Reserve - http://notionalvalue.blogspot.com/2011/11/14-reasons-why-we-should-nationalize.html

HELLO....new person to the site here...While I understand the magnitude of the issues raised by the occupy movement, I can honestly say in earnest that I don't think most of the population does. It is my belief that if they knew what the movement was pressing for in simple concise terms..the majority of this countries Americans would be on board....it seems to me that the occupy movement is all over the map and that being in a scattered position of protest hinders the highly significant message that could be delivered. I am not being critical--just real. Maybe the occupy leadership could hold an online election to discern 3 or 4 specific platforms from which the movement could mobilize and bombard the media with a position on these 3 or 4 selected issues of protest.

As a side note--the AARP organization has really taken a wise stance with their medicare benefits on the line by recently running ads putting politicians on notice of their strength in voting numbers--and by directing their solidarity right at the politicians running for office. Their ads say--we are 5 million strong voting Americans and we will be watching you (politicians) over the next few months and you will hear from us on election day...hence if you want to keep your job--you best be considering our desires because we are the people you represent--and we are watching.

Occupy should take this same bold in your face voting agenda. We need short concise issues that the movement feels strongly about in solidarity to target as our platform issues for resolution.

Example platforms:
1) Occupy demands an immediate criminal investigation and congressional inquiry into the reasons justifying the recent us tax dollar bail outs of financial institutions
2) Occupy demands new legislation that prohibits the --currently legal--practice of insider trading by elected officials in Congress
3) Occupy demands immediate government pressure, transparency and accountability of all banks and financial institutions that received us tax payer bail out money to disclose how the tax payer money was used to renegotiate upside down loans for Americans facing foreclosure--with renegotiation intent on Americans keeping their homes
4) 3% of the foreign aid budget redirected immediately to fund US infrastructure projects that create jobs for Americans.

These are just examples!

Next, it would be wise to bombard the media with whatever selected platforms derive so that public opinion and politicians can take sides and thus be held accountable, inspired or empowered. Lastly, the movement can be--and is--identified by the 99% population characteristic--however, we are also a remarkable voting power by our sheer numbers that if reasonably flashed in the face of politicians have the capacity to bring criminals to justice via congressional inquiry into the wall street deception and good ole boy antics. The occupy movement has this capacity! It is ripe for demanding change if simple organizational functions and leadership can focus and target. Just a thought and commentary?

This is an interesting thread and as a new member here, I'd like to comment.

I agree that direct democracy is needed, badly needed, for the people to protect themselves from the political corruption we have experienced - and will continue to experience - unless we begin to take part in law making. But the elimination of the use of representatives may not be necessary. We just need to control them. And we can do that with law. Representatives are good for handling the details of government while the people set the agendas.

A great deal of work has already been put into this concept by experts over the last couple of decades. I highly recommend that everyone familiarize themselves with the National Initiative for Democracy (www.ni4d.us). The founder of this program is former U.S. Senator Mike Gravel who actually submitted a bill to create direct democracy in the form of a national initiative. Of course he was shot down by the power elite. Older folks will remember Gravel as the man who released The Pentagon Papers and helped end the Vietnam war.

Read the National Initiative carefully and you will understand how it will solve many problems by empowering the people.