Illinois Governor Rauner Signs Red Flag, Waiting Period Bill Into Law

Governor Bruce Rauner Signs Red Flag Waiting Period Bill


“Everyone agrees that we need to keep firearms out of the hands of those who would use them to commit acts of violence against themselves or others. These two laws are a commonsense approach that gives us tools to limit access to guns and perhaps save lives while we continue to respect constitutional rights.” – Governor Bruce Rauner in Illinois Tightens Gun Regulations With Red-Flag Law [via]


  1. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

    just wait until jabba takes his seat. you ain’t seen nuffin’.

  2. avatar Andrew Lias says:

    This doesn’t sound like an ISRA sell out at all, does it?

  3. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

    Democrat-speak; respect = trample.

    1. avatar DaveL says:

      Whenever gun control supporters speak of respecting 2nd Amendment rights, always remember they don’t believe there is any such thing.

      1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

        It’s not just gun control, whenever a Democrat opens his mouth if he’s not telling outright lies he’s speaking in euphemisms. Killing a child is a ‘choice’, squandering a trillion dollars of taxpayers’ money on kickbacks to unions is ‘investing in infrastructure’, bigotry against Christians is ‘tolerance’, etc. They should never be trusted.

    2. avatar James says:

      Rauner is a Republican.

      1. avatar Keith says:

        And a statist tool. (R) means little.

      2. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

        Ah, that explains why he’s not in prison yet. Still, he speaks Democrat-speak, so I’m assuming he’s a RINO.

        1. avatar James says:

          He’s a Republican in name, in party, in where he gets his campaign money (as well as his own finances, of course). He’s also a republican in how he governs, so not just a RINO. He’s just looking out for #1, like the vast majority of politicians. In Illinois, that means supporting gun reform if he wants a snowball’s chance in hell of getting re-elected.

        2. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          So there’s no one to blame but Cook County then.

          Hasn’t there been a long tradition of Illinois governors ending up in prison for ‘looking out for #1’?

  4. avatar Leighton Cavendish says:

    Photo ID and/or proof of citizenship is common sense for voting…right?
    Waiting period for NEW gun owners is one thing, but those that already own guns…not so much.

    1. avatar FedUp says:

      SillyNoise has FOID cards.
      IIRC, it takes weeks to get a FOID.

      So the only thing an additional waiting period can possibly do is interfere with the rights of an individual who already owns a gun, or who has been planning his first gun purchase for a long time and just obtained his FOID after a background check and waiting period.

      I can’t wait for this governor to leave office and move to a federal prison like the others.

      1. avatar Mdb says:

        Very true! Getting an FOID Card is waiting period enough.

        I don’t think you can even handle I firearm in a gun store without having a FOID….

        1. avatar frank speak says:

          what is it with this foid nonsense…why should you have to pay or get permission to exercise a constitutional right?…stuff like this needs to make it to the court…

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “…stuff like this needs to make it to the court…”

          It already has been. Read the Heller decision in full:
          Page 2, Number 2
          Pg 3, sentence 3

          These examples alone are SC endorsement that States, even the federal government, may regulate your “right” to keep and bear arms. If regulation is permitted, then paying for regulation is not a violation of the Second Amendment.

    2. avatar Sam I Am says:

      How silly of you. EVERYONE has a right to vote, citizen or not. Only certain people have a right to own guns. Second amendment says “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms…”. Government is the only legitimate agency to determine just who those “people” are. Who can argue with that?

      Keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally disabled is not controversial. How else to accomplish that goal than to vet every person who wants to possess a firearm. Otherwise, you can never know if the person buying a gun is doing so for criminal purposes. Government is appointed to secure the freedom of everyone from risk and harm. That means government is the accepted authority when it comes to weapons in the hands of the public. Preventing gun crimes is more important than punishing violators after the fact. If we don’t have gun crimes (because only trusted people would have guns), we don’t need to spend time and money dealing with gun crimes after the fact.

      We put leaders in charge of government in order to protect us from difficulty and harm. Why do we then want to restrict the actions of government in ensuring we are safe from unnecessary risk and harm? If government is not in charge of “the people” then you have everyone deciding for themselves how they will behave. People can’t just be free to do whatever excites them at the moment. Government is there to protect not only the innocent bystanders, but to protect the bad actors from themselves. Governments are necessary to control the improper urges of the society, not established so the population can just go do whatever they want.

      Freedom is a fine thing, but just like too much cake and ice cream, not good for the digestion of the body. Entropy rules a system unless forced to remain stable by force.

      Crap. Ok, here it is… “/s”

      1. avatar Baldwin says:

        “If government is not in charge of “the people” then you have everyone deciding for themselves how they will behave.” If only….

      2. avatar BehindEnemyLines says:

        No, not EVERYONE has the right to vote. Minors, felons, and non-citizens don’t have that right. So why not require ID to vote? All your arguments for why we need to vet gun owners also apply to voting. After all, voting is ultimately used to determine how government should use its guns.

        I’m for less restrictions on civil liberties across the board.

        Edit: I just now noticed your /s

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          You didn’t scroll down far enough.

      3. avatar TrappedInCommiefornia says:

        I knew you were being sarcastic, but you still made a more believable and coherent argument in one post than any of the Bloomberg trolls have in all their posts combined. You should see if you can paid for that shit.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “You should see if you can paid for that shit.”

          I am rewarded just by receiving cogent, thoughtful responses.

          Thank you.

      4. avatar Jim Bullock says:

        Nice work.

        The game, as our “how we speak and act” author said is “how we speak and act.” Craft a response to each piece of the /sarc. Tag line – one line response then the breakdown behind it. Do The Thinking so you know why it’s so, and you can counter any squirm and weasel they’ll try.


        “Silly you, that’s exactly the point. In a republic, citizens have the right to vote.”

        In a republic, the citizens join to govern themselves, to their own advantage. That’s the definition. It’s a voluntary mutual-aid society. Citizens govern, non-citizens don’t.

        In the US, you can become a citizen merely by accepting the standing covenant of self-governance the citizens already in place, already follow. (“Birthright citizenship” — what if people born here had to *explicitly join the citizen’s covenant* just like “naturalized” citizens? I’m fine with “You’re born here, we don’t headcount-limit whether we’ll give you a shot at joining.” BUT, this “I have joined nothing but I still get to decide how it should be.” is nonsense. As we are seeing.)

        – Citizens accept a covenant to govern themselves to everyone’s gain, not the gain of some over others.

        – Citizens’ covenant is with each other. The government, whatever that may be, is a means.

        – Citizens in a *constitutional* republic agree to the scope of that governing, and the structure of that government, as described … “constituted.” Get it?

        – The US *constitutional* republic calls out some distinct aspects of that agreement: same rules for everybody, for example.

        — Some things are off the table: too dangerous, too prone to abuse by one citizen over another. Speech restrictions by armed government enforcers, for example.

        — Some things are required: limits and protocols, so net, net people get a shot at making their own lives, even when some assemble enough non-government power to hijack the government.

        Your options are to change the rules with sufficient agreement from people already in the covenant — how is built into the machinery — or you can be part of something else.

        The US has been host to any number of cults, collectives, religious communities, congregations (Occupy Wall Street as a evangelical movement – discuss.), coops, partnerships, membership organizations, and mutual aid societies, addressing things some say should be “government.” By making the universal covenant small, people get to choose what they’d prefer for the other issues. Some people like living in dorms, eating porridge, selling poppies at airports. Some don’t. “How little can we get away with doing together, so we can each do our own thing separately?”

        Conveniently, the US arrangement, plus the Classical Liberal perspective, and Common Law tradition encompass the several things that seem to lead to prosperity. As looks at broad data by the likes of Hans Rosling show, prosperity tends to happen where you have property rights, rule of law (common, no administrative), and free markets. If you own yourself, you own your stuff, and can trade with who you like follows from the US citizens’ constitution, and the traditions around it.

        There are other arrangements.

        Certainly, there is long history that you can swear fealty, become a vassal of some greater power. The limits on the arrangement, ways to change it and ways out are somewhat less than in our constitutional republic. With these arrangements, the notion that it’s an arrangement for your own self-government, for your advantage, is right out.

        Plenty of “governments” presume “their” people exist for the government’s advantage, and it’s patrons. Still in living memory is East Germany’s wall keeping people in, not by their preference. Still living — barely — are hordes kept in, not by their choice, in North Korea. People are fleeing Venezuala ever faster, as they have from too many parts of Africa and the Middle East; their first problem is getting clear of the people who would keep them there, then they merely have to traverse continents, learn new languages, assimilate to new cultures, and find a trade in a new system.

        So, you can have another arrangement with like-minded people:

        – Join if they’ll have you…

        – Leave if they’ll let you…

        – Make sure you’re a client to be patronized, not a resource to be harvested…

        In the US, anybody gets to vote with their feet, up to a point. Only citizens get to vote on what we’ll use the coercive power of government to inflict on each other.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Following along with your ideas:

          Everyone has a natural, human, and civil right to determine their own future in this country. Denying voting rights to non-citizens is no different from “Taxation without Representation”. For citizens to deny millions of non-citizens a say in the future of this country is barbaric.

          To deny the vote makes non-citizens less than an entire person (hhhmmm, 3/5s, maybe?). We depend on these non-citizens every day, yet refuse them a voice in how they will be treated. That makes them vassals. White Americans wrenched this nation from the hands of indigenous peoples. These people are members of separate nations, yet they can vote in our country.

          At one time, slaves were present in this country, and they were denied all the benefits of citizenship. It goes without saying that slaves were non-citizens (and of color). Slaves could not vote. Sounds like the same thing applies to non-citizens today. Which makes non-citizens equivalent to slaves. Is that your idea of a “Republic”?

          A non-citizen is a human. All humans have an inviolable right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness (yeah, I know, “pursuit”, not “outcome”). Denying humans in this country the same vote as citizens makes the non-citizen less than human.

        2. avatar Baldwin says:

          Sam I Am: “Denying humans in this country the same vote as citizens makes the non-citizen less than human.” Ahhhh, nope. You can’t just barge in the door of someone’s house and make yourself at home and help yourself to their food, their car, and bank account, etc. You have NO say in how that household is run. It does NOT belong to you.

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “You have NO say in how that household is run. It does NOT belong to you.”

          The US is not a private residence. Everyone has a right to safety. People come here because they are forced out of their own homes, they face severe hardship, and many are targeted by their governments for prison or death. The refugees who arrive here are people, humans, just as you are. They are here. They are not going to leave by the millions, and we cannot transport them. They are here. We must deal with reality, not some dream or a world long ago that is not coming back.

          The refugees are among us, and they are affected by what the citizens do, and citizens vote. The humane thing is to care for these refugees, not make their lives more miserable.

          What separates us from so many countries is we do not hate refugees, we do not exploit them, make them slaves, and then discard them in the desert. That is not what makes America great again. We are America. Unlike Europe, America can plan for large immigration, build facilities, teach the refugees how to live in their new country, bring them into society (not just dump them into ghettos), and create a win-win for everyone.

          We need to honor the struggle of the refugees who risked everything to get here, just as we honor those who built and sustained this nation. Make America Great Again by turning a tragedy into a triumph of life.

        4. avatar Baldwin says:

          Sam I Am: I agree with a lot that you say…under the context of LEGAL immigration.

        5. avatar Sam I Am says:

          But, “legal” immigration is not the matter under discussion. We are faced with a human crisis of refugees that cannot be resolved by hopes of all them voluntarily exit and figh their way back to the horrors they fled. Nor can we expect there is any mechanism by which they will all be returned in safe transport to wherever they fled. The “non-citizens”, by which we always mean so-called “illegal immigrants” cannot be ignored, or wished away. They are here, and either dealt with intelligently, or become members of a sub-culture that has no hope of ever being more than a boil on the our national character. Leaving things as they are means a constant drain or our resources, or we can face the problem head-on, and create conditions for new citizens to become capable of caring for themselves.

          Bottom line: even if you militarize the southern border, and manage to stop (one way or another) any new illegal entry, those who are here remain here. Now what?

        6. avatar Baldwin says:

          Sam I Am: “Bottom line: even if you militarize the southern border, and manage to stop (one way or another) any new illegal entry, those who are here remain here. Now what?” First rule of damage control…stop the flooding or your ship (country) sinks. First rule of first aid…stop the bleeding (loss of freedoms) or the patient is gonna die anyway. I honestly don’t know what the solution should be. But all the solutions in the world just won’t matter if there is no free country of responsible citizens left to apply them to. But, first things first. Stop the flooding and bleeding first.

        7. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “But, first things first. Stop the flooding and bleeding first.”

          You are talking about a an impenetrable wall or fence. Good luck with that. Surely that will Make America Great Again….consign the poorest of the poor to eternal poverty, crime, corruption, early death in their home countries. However, a wall does not address the millions here who need to be integrated, and Great America has no idea, no plan to make productive citizens of those already here.

          Good people, valuable lives are made “non-persons”. The lack of interest in providing an even chance for the undocumented to become whole, real persons tells the world who America really is: pull up the drawbridge, we got everything we want; the non-persons can fend for themselves. No matter which way you spin it, you propose no solution to the human agony in your own country. The only path forward you propose it to let the refugees suffer and fester. It is no accident, or innocent coincidence that the permanent underclass you are maintaining are majority non-white. These displaced persons are apparently “not the right kind of people” to have in your neighborhood, so they can remain in their squalor and hopelessness.

          All this underscores why the federal government must act to ensure proper attention is paid to the interest of the society as a whole. To protect us from our own worst instincts. If we are to have “…a more perfect union…” we must provide for everyone in the country to partake of the promises this country holds out. “Citizen” has a nice ring to it, but “Person” sounds even more sweet. To be a citizen, one must first be a person. Refusing every person the same human rights as “citizens” is selfish, uncaring, small-minded and uncaring about anyone but self. This is what government is formed to control.

        8. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Absolutely no one, in the history of this planet, has ever had a “right to safety”!! Don’t be ridiculous.

        9. avatar Jim Bullock says:


          Indeed, everyone has a right to determine their own future … as best they can, and not a right to participate in telling other people what they can do in the future, through a covenant they have not joined. (See “republic.”)

          There is no natural right to franchise or governing others. Voting is a protocol: a way a particular bunch of people have determined to govern themselves.

          In countries that focus particularly on leaving natural rights along, like the US, I’m all for leaving non-citizens as free as anyone else to do literally anything *except* participate in government; in governing an “our selves” that they have not joined.

          The rest is just as wrong…

          Everyone has a natural rights to do what they can, themselves, without demands on others. That’s the definition. Self-defense is one. Many governments try to remove this natural right … as ours does a bit more energetically of late. The US governments are outliers in trying to stay clear of natural rights, indeed they are governments arranged to support people exercising their natural rights. What rights? “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” is one take.

          “Human rights” is one of those squish terms, inventing a new category. If they are “natural” rights we don’t need a new term. If not, they’re not so intrinsic, valuable, or worth securing.

          Civil rights codify some natural rights — specifically assert limits on what government can do to keep it away from natural rights. Because governments love to ignore natural rights. You are a cell in the body of the state.

          So, everyone has some “natural rights” that are often ignored and abused by government. Rare is the government that is oriented toward securing and protecting them, however flawed the pursuit. “Human rights” is nonsense. “Civil rights” are codified *within a polity*.

        10. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “…in governing an “our selves” that they have not joined…”

          Oh, but they have. Through more effort than any native born person in the country.

          Not allowing residents full rights, including voting, does nothing but maintain a permanent underclass to be exploited by business and individuals who are happy to have cheap labor for all those jobs no one else wants to do. This country is all too happy to sustain a caste system, while claiming to do so with the highest principles of conservatism the motivation. “States rights” comes to mind.

          NOTE: this is really hard to do until I have had my two martinis in the morning (reinforced in the afternoon). Thinking like a lefty isn’t easy, unless you are one.

          Simple fact is we cannot remove all the refugees to reservations (Trail of Tears?), or back to their countries of origin. To refuse full rights to these people is to accept, even promote, a system of vassals. To keep them isolated and unassimilated. That truly makes America great again? A nation bent on exploiting the poor, the desperate, those for whom America is the last, best hope?

  5. avatar John Q Public says:

    Really! Respecting constitutional rights! Like those NJ. Troopers that showed up at that vets. home to “confiscate property” without a court warrant over hear-say…THAT’S respecting constitutional rights to “due process” with state declared “Red Flag/Extreme Risk Protection Orders…?!”

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Yeah, I was wondering just which constitutional rights he was saying were “respected”.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “Yeah, I was wondering just which constitutional rights he was saying were “protected”.”

        All of them. Your rights are protected by governments ensuring bad people don’t abuse those protected rights.

        See how that works?

  6. avatar SteveM says:

    He clearly states his priorities:
    #1 Limit access to guns
    #2 Save lives if we’re lucky

  7. avatar John Q Public says:

    I’m surprised that the DemoCommies haven’t just thrown the constitution out the widow completely…I’m waiting for the other shoe to drop…For state level legislation to be introduced everywhere the DNC/RINOs are to allow “Local/City/STATE Police Departments to ISSUE THEIR own WARRANTS! Need to back up “The Red Flag/ERPO laws” without that Damn Constitutional thingy getting in the way of agendas! If that happens, you might as well get popcorn really…Because the 2nd American Civil War should be under way…Can’t wait for the televised “New Age USA/Nuremberg trials” for the DemoCRAPS/RINOs when the smoke clears!

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      I got a kick out of Hilarity commenting on SCOTUS nominee that she had thought Trump was trying to return us to the 1950s, now was concerned that it was the 1850s. Ha-ha, ain’t she sly? However, it is clear that she so disregards the constitution that she wants to return us to the 1750s, when it did not yet exist.

  8. avatar John Q Public says:

    One of my relatives I believe is right…Thought they were speaking about conspiracy theories/Tin Foil hat stuff…But, various states where Liberal Marxist/Globalists are present in THEIR USA archetype of RINOs/DNC…Are possibly driving an agenda to “Bordered, State Feudalism—with a Police-State internal structure that keeps the citizens in place…Feudalistic income/job base structure keeps citizens in their place…Restructuring of “Civil Liberties”. Like were seeing here…How far before we go beyond the point of no return….?

    1. avatar California Richard says:

      We’ve been beyond the point of no return for a long time now. Go get hard copies of your state’s statutory codes (Health, Safety, Penal, Vehicle, Welfare, Tax, etc), your city’s municiple codes, your county codes, and all the Federal codes….. You can literally fill a library with all those laws. You are constantly breaking social engineering laws every day and don’t realize it. All it takes is you standing up and pissing off the wrong person and they have more than enough ammo to deprive you of your life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. That’s not to say they WILL, just that they CAN at their discretion. So shut up little peon, be a good little tax payer, and don’t meddle in the affairs of your betters.

      “Freedom” is a fantasy that most people believe they have. We hear Europeans talk about how they are “free” and we scratch our heads, because they are self dillutional subjects. If we depend on one or two SCOTUS appointments to “protect” our “freedoms”, then we aren’t free. If the outcome of a presidential race will “determine our freedom” for the next 20 years, then we aren’t free. If it “saves just one child, then it’s all worth it,” then we aren’t free. If we depend on the ignorance, ambivalence, or benevolence of the police to NOT enforce the law against us as we are constantly breaking it, then we aren’t free. We’re at the mercy of a “benevolent” few, which last I checked, isn’t the way this is all supposed to work.

      I would take my tin foil hat off, but experience has welded it to my thick lead skull.

  9. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

    Well, since “common sense” trumps the freedoms in our Constitution, I’d like to see some common sense when it comes to voting rights. Voter ID’s are a must. Perhaps every voter should also undergo a NICS check, too. I’d even impose literacy testing requirements. But because voting for the wrong candidate can be very dangerous to our Republic by way of national security, simple literacy requirements aren’t enough. We should impose minimum IQ standards, too. Equally important is that voters have skin in the game that is earned. No longer can we have citizens who contribute nothing to society voting for politicians who promise to redistribute money from tax payers into the pockets of non tax payers. So let’s institute a minimum requirement of earned income before opening up our voting booths. All common sense. Let’s protect our children from irresponsible and dangerous voters.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      You forgot one item. Once so vetted, you may vote. Then your vote will be examined to determine whether you misled the authorities about your qualifications (ie, if you voted Dem), and if you did then your vote is discarded and you receive a brand on your forehead “NO VOTE”, to assure it does not happen again. If you think the Constitution is outmoded/unimportant, surely that would be OK with you, ‘cuz why not?

      1. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

        I wasn’t attempting to be thorough, just making a point. If we were to adopt the policies of the anti-gun, domestic terrorist, we’d rightfully require all the eligible citizens wishing to vote to undergo mandatory testing. This would include comprehensive written testing demonstrating proficiency of the US Constitution, American Civics and a deep understanding of the policies of all candidates on the ballot. Of course, these tests would necessarily be in English, only. This would solve nearly all of our voting problems, overnight, and at the same time, preserve the future for all of our children. Who could possibly oppose requiring informed voters? It’s just common sense.

  10. avatar former water walker says:

    Rauner lost my tepid support. No way he’d beat fatazz Prickster anyway. Leaves dealers alone and screws us ordinary plebian gun owner’s. Burn in he!! He also supports murdering babies…

  11. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    These two laws are a commonsense approach that gives us tools to limit access to guns and perhaps save lives while we continue to respect constitutional rights. – Governor Bruce Rauner

    Anyone else notice the important phrase “perhaps save lives”? Thus Governor Rauner believes it is totally fine to infringe on people’s rights as long his enforcers may, perhaps, maybe, sometimes save lives. Scumbag.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “Anyone else notice the important phrase “perhaps save lives”?”

      Yes. “If it saves just one…” How can anyone seriously claim that zero lives will be saved?

      Which is why even “perhaps” is attractive to gun controllers.

  12. avatar Chris T from KY says:

    Gun grabbers use weak-minded fools to pass these laws. They really do not care how many women are raped or murdered. The end goal is to disarm the civilian population. Unfortunately there are too many weak-minded politicians who don’t see this long term goal.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “Unfortunately there are too many weak-minded politicians who don’t see this long term goal.”

      The long term goal, the prime directive for “weak-minded politicians” is actually quite shrewd: do what ever keeps them in office.

  13. avatar BRUCE R. says:

    to think all the liberals had to do was break the law and block the highway off.

    Shall Not Be In Fringed.


  14. avatar J says:

    I guess that will be it for us in Illinois in the Governors fall election. I will not be voting for Governor Rauner that sold us out. Illinois is doomed anyway when Chicago Democrat J.B. Pritzker wins in November as Governor. He will sign all of the almost 12 gun control laws they submitted during this session. No more buying parts for your firearms. Nothing about those bills are commonsense or any of the other gun control bills submitted by the Chicago Democrats during this legislative session. Time to move to another state.

    1. avatar Illinois patriot says:

      This was the deciding factor for us to leave the state. Put more restrictions on our rights and squeeze us out. It’s clear Illinois doesn’t want the law abiding citizens anymore. One reason of many why the state population is declining.

    2. avatar Joel says:

      Grew up in Illinois. I’m trying to convince my aging parents to get out of there as soon as they can. Very sad what has happened to a once strong agriculture and manufacturing state. I used to be proud to come from the Land of Lincoln. Now, I think Lincoln would bug out at the first opportunity. The saddest part is that there are intelligent folks all across the state who have been marginalized by the leftist politics and policies oozing out of the once mighty Windy City.

  15. avatar m. says:

    anti-2a libcom d-sucker infringement by Ill-in-noise legislate-whores, nothing new.

  16. avatar Ironhead says:

    In celebration of my leaving IL, i went and bought an Aero Precision lower today.
    Get out while you can.

  17. avatar TyrannyOfEvilMen says:

    … And you can still have free-speech, we’ll just restrict the use of certain words. You can still have freedom of religion, we’ll just restrict certain ways that you can pray.

    And so forth.

  18. avatar BOB says:

    THIS IDIOT, look at CHICAGO, obama town number 1 murder city in AMERICA, HAS HAD BAN ON GUNS SINCE1929 ? so his is the next murder city, as all are bankrupt . but if city’s follow there socialist agenda we will have communist country, so this is their plan. ONE WORLD ORDER!! SO WAKE UP PEOPLE VOTE THEM OUT OF OFFICE OR IMPEACH THEM.

Write a Comment


button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email