"The game is rigged, the network is bugged, the government talks double-speak, the courts are complicit, and there's nothing you can do about it." - David Kravets, reporting for Wired

Nothing you write, say, text, tweet or share via phone or computer is private anymore. This is the reality of the Internet-dependent, plugged-in life of most Americans today.

A process that started shortly after 9/11 with programs such as National Security Agency (NSA) wiretapping and Total Information Awareness has grown into a full-fledged network of warrant-less surveillance, electronic tracking, and data-mining, thanks to federal agents having been granted carte blanche access to the vast majority of electronic communications in America. Their methods generally run counter to the Constitution, but no federal agency, court, or legislature has stepped up to oppose this rapid erosion of our privacy, and there is no way of opting out of this system.

Consequently, over the course of the past 12 years, Congress, the courts, and the presidents (both George W. Bush and Barack Obama) have managed to completely erode privacy in America. Complicating matters further is the fact that technology is moving so rapidly that we often find ourselves making decisions (or subjected to decisions) whose consequences we can scarcely comprehend.

The media cartels, currently the public-relations arm of politicians (and their bureaucracies) and the corporate elite, lend their full cooperation in censoring ideas that inform political debate in America. Why? Because an informed populace is an anathema to the two-party system so critical to the current political power base. This self-perpetuating system enriches the global elite through strategic and privileged partnerships that confiscate and consolidate the world's wealth and resources.

There can be no question that America is now in an era of authoritarianism, and we, as a people, are on the brink of facing extreme tyranny in our lifetimes. (And your locally elected officials and officers stand idly by forsaking their oaths of office, under the pretense of violating your rights in the name of security and arrogantly determining that they are providing you a quality of life you deserve. But I digress ... .)

From the militant police state to the invasion of your privacy to the violation of your personal liberties, we have published articles for nearly 20 years documenting our circumstances that resemble what many have referred to as a slowly boiling frog: It does not know it's being cooked until it's too late.

Last week, U.S. Representative Ron Paul (R-Texas) delivered his farewell speech on the House floor, putting a bookend on his 23-year career as arguably the most fervent, principled, and consistent defender of the Bill of Rights. Below are the text (from his House Web page) and video of Dr. Paul's speech, well worth noting for reminding us that the original intent of America's founding documents was to govern the government, not govern the people.

For the past few years, the Civic Committee of the Commercial Club of Chicago has been one of the most feared participants in the state's pension-reform debate.

Ty Fahner, a former Illinois attorney general who heads the Civic Committee, managed to convince both parties to elbow each other for a position of favor with him and his group.

When Fahner ended up siding with the House Democrats back in May and endorsing their pension-reform plan, including shifting costs to school districts, the House Republicans were furious and disappointed. They had been assiduously courting Fahner, and figured that since the Civic Committee is composed of several top Chicago business leaders, they'd be the natural ally of choice.

Not to mention that Fahner also formed a political action committee ("We Mean Business") to back up his word. Everybody wanted that money, so the PAC gave his position additional strength.

But those days appear to be behind us, at least for now. Fahner's histrionics last week over what he claimed was an "unfixable" pension problem have all but cut him out of the Statehouse mix. "He's made himself irrelevant," said one top Democratic official who is intimately involved with pension reform.

Back in 1992, Latinos made up about 8 percent of Illinois' population, yet only 1 percent of that year's total election-day voter pool was Latino. The trend continued for years. Latinos just didn't vote.

Twenty years later, things have changed in a big way. According to exit polling, 12 percent of Illinois voters last week were Latino - compared to the 16 percent of Illinois residents who are Latino.

That high participation contributed to many of last week's electoral surprises.

Pensions are among the most important investments American workers and employers make. We work for years so that when the time comes, we can retire with enough income to live comfortably, enjoy the much-deserved leisure time, and engage in activities of our own choosing.

This week's cover story examines Iowa's and Illinois' pensions, which, when coupled with health-care benefits, are in grave danger of insolvency, threatening to potentially bankrupt Illinois. This is due to the unsustainable "defined-benefit" pension plan that promises each employee a percentage of his or her annual income, regardless of the amount of contributions made by the employee, or on the employee's behalf by the employer (the state's taxpayers), over his/her years of service.

There's nothing quite like the spectacle of Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan when he's out to get somebody.

Just ask state Representative Skip Saviano (R-Elmwood Park).

The two men used to be allies, even friends. Saviano supported Madigan's daughter when Lisa ran for state attorney general. But then Lisa turned against Saviano's political mentor, the late Rosemont Mayor Don Stephens, blocking his dream of building a local casino because, she claimed, he was tied to the mob. Saviano vowed revenge.

While it may be months before the devastation wrought by Hurricane Sandy can be fully resolved, Americans cannot afford to lose sight of the very real and pressing issues that threaten to derail the nation.

What follows is an overview of the major issues that both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, despite their respective billion-dollar war chests, have failed to mention during their extensive campaign-trail stumping and televised debates. These are issues that aren't going away anytime soon. Indeed, unless we take a proactive approach to the problems that loom large before us, especially as they relate to America's ongoing transformation into a police state, we may find that they are here to stay.

Independent expenditures in state legislative races are closing in on the $2-million mark since July 1, with most of that spending coming in the month of October, Illinois State Board of Elections records show.

In March, a federal judge struck down Illinois' law capping contributions to so-called state super-PACs. Since then, according to the State Board of Elections' Web site, $1.8 million has been spent by groups on Illinois campaigns, and - as of late last week - $1.3 million of that has been spent in the month of October alone.

Super-PAC money is expected to increase exponentially in 2014, when the governorship and other statewide offices are up for election. So far, just 11 independent-expenditure committees have been formed, but more will surely come after this cycle ends.

There are two Scott County Board of Supervisors seats up for grabs in this year's election. Voters who want a supervisor who actually supervises and reads the materials being presented prior to a vote would do well to give Jesse Anderson's candidacy some serious consideration, regardless of your political affiliation. With experience and age, wisdom and knowledge should logically follow. Not so with the Scott County Board of Supervisors and how it has conducted business over the past several years, especially relative to big issues that impact all taxpayers in Scott County.

A fascinating and foolproof strategy for political speechifying is to make mostly sweeping statements that are vague enough that listeners are forced to subconsciously fill in the blanks for themselves. Take this sweeping-but-vague statement: "We need to create good-paying jobs to bring this country back to its former greatness." To be truly meaningful for listeners, this statement needs more specific definitions of terms, such as an actual wage range in place of "good-paying." However, instead of providing specific details, politicians purposely allow each listener to mentally substitute his/her own version of "good-paying" with satisfactory wage ranges of their own.

What is meant by "former greatness" in the above statement? It doesn't matter because listeners will specify the meaning internally. Each of us will automatically plug in our own definitions, while simultaneously giving the politicians the credit for delivering speeches we can relate to, yet avoiding any accountability for their details.

Pages