Mike Madigan Ready To Insult Your Int...

Mike Madigan Ready To Insult Your Intelligence Once Again

Posted in the Dixmoor Forum

First Prev
of 11
Next Last
Mike

Blue Island, IL

#1 Feb 26, 2013
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2013

MIKE MADIGAN READY TO INSULT YOUR INTELLIGENCE ONCE AGAIN

From the Illinois State Rifle Association -

Mike Madigan is ticked off...

Why is Mike Madigan so ticked off? Quite simply, he’s ticked off because the 7th District Court of Appeals has told him plainly that the legislature must bow to constitutional authority – not to the whims of Mike Madigan. And we all know what a control freak Mike Madigan is.

No, Mike Madigan is no longer in control of the concealed carry debate. The courts have said once and for all that Illinois will join 49 other states in allowing citizens to carry defensive firearms.

The court has really ticked Madigan off...

Mike Madigan is so ticked off that he plans to introduce his own version of a concealed carry bill early next week. Of course, under Madigan’s carry bill, the only people who would be allowed to carry would be... um... nobody.

Although the details of Madigan’s concealed carry bill (HR1155) have not yet been released, those close to Madigan are saying that it will be the most restrictive concealed carry bill in the nation.

One insider termed Madigan’s proposal,“...the closest thing to no-carry at all.”

WHAT YOU MUST DO TO STOP MADIGAN’S INSULTING BILL

1. Call your state representative and politely tell them that you are a law-abiding firearm owner and that you oppose Madigan’s insulting HR1155 and that you would like them to vote against the bill.

2. Pass this alert on to all your friends and family members and ask them to call their state representatives as well.

3. Please post this alert to any and all Internet blogs or bulletin boards to which you belong.
Robert

Blue Island, IL

#2 Feb 27, 2013
House Majority Leader Barbara Flynn Currie, D-Chicago - Does she have a conceal carry exemption or a police detail? How about Speaker Madigan? Many of these politicians have permits to carry that many of us are not aware of or they have a protective detail...something the average citizen doesn't have. They know what's good for us, just trust them to do it.....NOT! By limiting law abiding citizens' ability to protect themselves, Ms. Currie and Mr. Madigan continue to give criminals more rights and the ability to carry illegal weapons for criminal purposes. Not one amendment proposes to take guns away from criminals....because they've proven that they can't prevent gangbangers from carrying and using guns.
Tom Bedore

Blue Island, IL

#3 Feb 27, 2013
Hey Madigan does this %%$#^ mean that people can sue this #$%@@ up state that your running into the ground when some thug who don't play by the rules shoots up some place that does not allow ccw? Wake UP Mike get with the times we the not so rich like you don't have body guards! When was the last time you were in a gang infested area? or ride public trans, I don't have limo service like you Mike or Lisa! Give the good people of what's left of this state a fighting chance to protect them selves!
VOTER

Chicago, IL

#4 Mar 1, 2013
Be careful what you wish for.
the scheme

Chicago, IL

#5 May 30, 2013
Editorial: Got your veto pen ready, Gov. Quinn? They're playing 'Casino Surprise!'

Rep. Bob Rita and other lawmakers hold a news conference Wednesday to talk about gambling legislation. May 29, 2013)

With state legislators flailing toward Friday's scheduled adjournment, sponsors of a bill that would more than double the number of Illinois casinos are playing their favorite game. No, not slots or video poker. They're playing an Illinois bastardization of hide-the-pea. Call it "Casino Surprise!"

That probably means the sponsors, and the lobbyists who dangle them from little strings, couldn't muster enough House votes to pass a huge bill the Senate already has approved. Their new gambit evidently is to say as little as possible about how the bill is being rewritten — somewhere unknown, by someone unknown — so it can be sprung on lawmakers before the session ends. If a bill gets through the House and senators agree to this mysterious new version, it would go to Gov. Pat Quinn.

Quinn correctly vetoed 2011 and 2012 casino bills — largely because of their intentionally slippery ethics provisions — and may need to kill a 2013 bill as well.

Wednesday morning we watched the bill's chief sponsor in the House, state Rep. Bob Rita, avoid explaining what provisions his new bill language will include. Rita spoke reassuringly of how the rejiggered bill would retain its previous "framework," without defining framework. But he did not want to talk specifics. And it's the specifics that ought to frighten every Illinoisan.

When last we saw this monstrosity, with its expansion from 10 Illinois casinos to 23, it included three Chicago-owned casinos, with one at each of the city's airports. We're fine with Chicago owning casinos and hiring one or more experienced gambling companies to operate them.

But the notion of Chicago's City Hall having any regulatory oversight of a casino owned by, um, Chicago's City Hall is unthinkable.

Specifically: Lawmakers and the governor ought to refuse any legislation that diverts any regulatory responsibilities customarily held by the Illinois Gaming Board to a Chicago Casino Development Authority that answers to City Hall. Imagine the possibilities.

You get the picture: The sponsors of this legislation don't want the rest of us to see ... this legislation. So they divert attention from the fact that they have no bill to tangential controversies, invented if necessary: Look at this shiny object over here!

That's their privilege. But giving Chicago's City Hall regulatory oversight of a Chicago casino is not their privilege. If a bill includes any such provision, other legislators or the governor need to kill it.

The sponsors could have resolved all these questions by simply delivering their new language to legislators by now. That they didn't speaks volumes. Lawmakers, if you can't read a bill this huge, on an issue this controversial, with enough advance time to understand its innermost risks, then you shouldn't be voting for it.

And as you weigh this issue, consider:

The Gaming Board has proved that it can protect state-licensed gambling from illicit political or criminal intrusion. That is, the board has a nearly quarter-century record of keeping legalized Illinois gambling free of organized crime and other scandals that would frighten away customers and dry up the rich stream of revenue from casinos to state government.

Gov. Quinn, maybe Rita & Co. are drafting legislation with unprecedented ethical controls and no sweetheart deals that would put less Gaming Board scrutiny on Chicago casinos than other Illinois casinos now endure.

Or maybe Rita & Co. are drafting another ugly bill, not unlike those 2011 and 2012 monstrosities.

Got your veto pen ready, Governor?
Hello Phil Kadner

Chicago, IL

#6 May 30, 2013
the scheme wrote:
Editorial: Got your veto pen ready, Gov. Quinn? They're playing 'Casino Surprise!'
Rep. Bob Rita and other lawmakers hold a news conference Wednesday to talk about gambling legislation. May 29, 2013)
With state legislators flailing toward Friday's scheduled adjournment, sponsors of a bill that would more than double the number of Illinois casinos are playing their favorite game. No, not slots or video poker. They're playing an Illinois bastardization of hide-the-pea. Call it "Casino Surprise!"
That probably means the sponsors, and the lobbyists who dangle them from little strings, couldn't muster enough House votes to pass a huge bill the Senate already has approved. Their new gambit evidently is to say as little as possible about how the bill is being rewritten — somewhere unknown, by someone unknown — so it can be sprung on lawmakers before the session ends. If a bill gets through the House and senators agree to this mysterious new version, it would go to Gov. Pat Quinn.
Quinn correctly vetoed 2011 and 2012 casino bills — largely because of their intentionally slippery ethics provisions — and may need to kill a 2013 bill as well.
Wednesday morning we watched the bill's chief sponsor in the House, state Rep. Bob Rita, avoid explaining what provisions his new bill language will include. Rita spoke reassuringly of how the rejiggered bill would retain its previous "framework," without defining framework. But he did not want to talk specifics. And it's the specifics that ought to frighten every Illinoisan.
When last we saw this monstrosity, with its expansion from 10 Illinois casinos to 23, it included three Chicago-owned casinos, with one at each of the city's airports. We're fine with Chicago owning casinos and hiring one or more experienced gambling companies to operate them.
But the notion of Chicago's City Hall having any regulatory oversight of a casino owned by, um, Chicago's City Hall is unthinkable.
Specifically: Lawmakers and the governor ought to refuse any legislation that diverts any regulatory responsibilities customarily held by the Illinois Gaming Board to a Chicago Casino Development Authority that answers to City Hall. Imagine the possibilities.
You get the picture: The sponsors of this legislation don't want the rest of us to see ... this legislation. So they divert attention from the fact that they have no bill to tangential controversies, invented if necessary: Look at this shiny object over here!
That's their privilege. But giving Chicago's City Hall regulatory oversight of a Chicago casino is not their privilege. If a bill includes any such provision, other legislators or the governor need to kill it.
The sponsors could have resolved all these questions by simply delivering their new language to legislators by now. That they didn't speaks volumes. Lawmakers, if you can't read a bill this huge, on an issue this controversial, with enough advance time to understand its innermost risks, then you shouldn't be voting for it.
And as you weigh this issue, consider:
The Gaming Board has proved that it can protect state-licensed gambling from illicit political or criminal intrusion. That is, the board has a nearly quarter-century record of keeping legalized Illinois gambling free of organized crime and other scandals that would frighten away customers and dry up the rich stream of revenue from casinos to state government.
Gov. Quinn, maybe Rita & Co. are drafting legislation with unprecedented ethical controls and no sweetheart deals that would put less Gaming Board scrutiny on Chicago casinos than other Illinois casinos now endure.
Or maybe Rita & Co. are drafting another ugly bill, not unlike those 2011 and 2012 monstrosities.
Got your veto pen ready, Governor?
We need a state rep who will rebuild the bridges in Blue Island, to hell with more gambling.stop the corruption in Springfield, and the state of Illinois. Do you hear us phil kadner?
Ethics What Ethics

Chicago, IL

#7 May 30, 2013
the scheme wrote:
Editorial: Got your veto pen ready, Gov. Quinn? They're playing 'Casino Surprise!'
Rep. Bob Rita and other lawmakers hold a news conference Wednesday to talk about gambling legislation. May 29, 2013)
With state legislators flailing toward Friday's scheduled adjournment, sponsors of a bill that would more than double the number of Illinois casinos are playing their favorite game. No, not slots or video poker. They're playing an Illinois bastardization of hide-the-pea. Call it "Casino Surprise!"
That probably means the sponsors, and the lobbyists who dangle them from little strings, couldn't muster enough House votes to pass a huge bill the Senate already has approved. Their new gambit evidently is to say as little as possible about how the bill is being rewritten — somewhere unknown, by someone unknown — so it can be sprung on lawmakers before the session ends. If a bill gets through the House and senators agree to this mysterious new version, it would go to Gov. Pat Quinn.
Quinn correctly vetoed 2011 and 2012 casino bills — largely because of their intentionally slippery ethics provisions — and may need to kill a 2013 bill as well.
Wednesday morning we watched the bill's chief sponsor in the House, state Rep. Bob Rita, avoid explaining what provisions his new bill language will include. Rita spoke reassuringly of how the rejiggered bill would retain its previous "framework," without defining framework. But he did not want to talk specifics. And it's the specifics that ought to frighten every Illinoisan.
When last we saw this monstrosity, with its expansion from 10 Illinois casinos to 23, it included three Chicago-owned casinos, with one at each of the city's airports. We're fine with Chicago owning casinos and hiring one or more experienced gambling companies to operate them.
But the notion of Chicago's City Hall having any regulatory oversight of a casino owned by, um, Chicago's City Hall is unthinkable.
Specifically: Lawmakers and the governor ought to refuse any legislation that diverts any regulatory responsibilities customarily held by the Illinois Gaming Board to a Chicago Casino Development Authority that answers to City Hall. Imagine the possibilities.
You get the picture: The sponsors of this legislation don't want the rest of us to see ... this legislation. So they divert attention from the fact that they have no bill to tangential controversies, invented if necessary: Look at this shiny object over here!
That's their privilege. But giving Chicago's City Hall regulatory oversight of a Chicago casino is not their privilege. If a bill includes any such provision, other legislators or the governor need to kill it.
The sponsors could have resolved all these questions by simply delivering their new language to legislators by now. That they didn't speaks volumes. Lawmakers, if you can't read a bill this huge, on an issue this controversial, with enough advance time to understand its innermos risks, then you shouldn't be voting for it.
And as you weigh this issue, consider:
The Gaming Board has proved that it can protect state-licensed gambling from illicit political or criminal intrusion. That is, the board has a nearly quarter-century record of keeping legalized Illinois gambling free of organized crime and other scandals that would frighten away customers and dry up the rich stream of revenue from casinos to state government.
Gov. Quinn, maybe Rita & Co. are drafting legislation with unprecedented ethical controls and no sweetheart deals that would put less Gaming Board scrutiny on Chicago casinos than other Illinois casinos now endure.
Or maybe Rita & Co. are drafting another ugly bill, not unlike those 2011 and 2012 monstrosities.
Got your veto pen ready, Governor?
Fraud, Waste, Plot, Plan, Divert, Indulge. Enough Really Is Enough with this group void of any ETHICS!
Enough ECLAMATION POINT

Chicago, IL

#8 May 31, 2013
Ethics What Ethics wrote:
<quoted text>
Fraud, Waste, Plot, Plan, Divert, Indulge. Enough Really Is Enough with this group void of any ETHICS!
Tired of corruption that just increases my taxes-period.
mark

United States

#9 May 31, 2013
Hello Phil Kadner wrote:
<quoted text>
We need a state rep who will rebuild the bridges in Blue Island, to hell with more gambling.stop the corruption in Springfield, and the state of Illinois. Do you hear us phil kadner?
This is and example, of why Illinois needs term limits.
Can You Hear Us Gov Quinn

Chicago, IL

#10 May 31, 2013
Hello Phil Kadner wrote:
<quoted text>
We need a state rep who will rebuild the bridges in Blue Island, to hell with more gambling.stop the corruption in Springfield, and the state of Illinois. Do you hear us phil kadner?
Stop Casino Expansion and Corruption in Il.
Chicago Way Petulance

Blue Island, IL

#11 Jun 2, 2013
Editorial: Madigan, Cullerton and the price of their petulance
Connect the dots: Madigan, Cullerton, unemployment, taxpayer debts,'Keep Out!' signs ...
June 2, 2013
For reasons we don't pretend to know, House Speaker Michael Madigan and Senate President John Cullerton on Friday struck yet another of their serial blows at Illinois taxpayers and the insolvent state government we're all obliged to finance.
If you live here, this minuet of failure will cost you. Because with their inability to agree on pension reform, Madigan and Cullerton are dooming all the people of Illinois to more of the same: employers who look elsewhere, a jobless rate among America's highest, runaway public debts that taxpayers do have to pay.
We can't fully quantify the enormous expenses that their unshamed petulance and gridlock foist on those taxpayers. We can, though, connect the damaging dots:
Illinois — its people and its government — thrives when rising numbers of businesses and workers lavish income and sales taxes on Springfield. Madigan and Cullerton give lip service to all of that. But when blinded by mutual rivalries and resentments worthy of a high school pom squad, the two Chicago Democrats might as well deface the "Welcome" signs on Illinois' state lines with the hostile message its political swells project: "Keep Out!"
Not long ago we asked a major commercial lender whether potential employers talk about the financial risks of locating or expanding in Illinois, given the depth of its debts, the fecklessness of its pols and the likelihood that tax burdens here will continue to metastasize. He murmured helplessly: "They all talk about it."
Some employers come here anyway, he told us. But others see in Illinois' dysfunction not only the threat of tax hikes, but a chronic inability to solve problems. When those employers think ahead to the day they may need state government's help with their problem, where do they want to be? In inept Illinois? Or in better-managed Wisconsin, or Indiana or maybe Iowa — where, on the same day last month, Google and Facebook announced a total of $1.5 billion in capital investments.
The Illinois of Madigan and Cullerton, by contrast, doesn't make enough employers want to do their growing here. The Illinois of Madigan and Cullerton isn't the place to hire; too many public schools produce low-skilled graduates. The Illinois of Madigan and Cullerton isn't the place to raise children; lawmakers have had to cut spending on education. Why so?
Because the Illinois of Madigan and Cullerton is spending more than 20 percent of its general funds budget on pension contributions and pension bond payments this year. Next year's total pension outlay rises by $1 billion, to more than $8.4 billion. And speaking of bond payments: The pending downgrade of Illinois' credit rating — Moody's Investors Service warned of that Friday — will continue to cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of squandered dollars a year in needlessly high interest for buyers of Illinois securities. That money instead should be going to Illinois' unpaid bills, or to services for the disabled, or to ...
Madigan and Cullerton could have begun curbing Illinois' devastating pension costs. Instead they spent the final day of their spring session conniving to thwart one another on various bills — pension reform included but clearly not prioritized. So taxpayers who should be celebrating a $187 billion reduction in their pension obligations over the next 30 years instead watched legislators head off to celebrate — what, their utter helplessness?— at a Springfield after-party.
Why shouldn't Madigan and Cullerton ignore Illinois' downward spiral? Between them they've spent more than seven decades in the General Assembly. They've worked across the aisle, Democrats voting with Republicans, to create many of the debts and obligations that are strangling Illinois.
Chicago Way Petulance

Blue Island, IL

#12 Jun 2, 2013
But hey, they're still there, with big majorities in their respective chambers, and with custom-drawn legislative maps to assure them future clout.

These aren't bad men. As we've said before, they want what's best for Illinois — provided they don't have to seriously affront the public employees unions and other supplicants that reward them with campaign money and muscle.

On Friday, Madigan and Cullerton put the rest of us in our place. Those supplicants who like Illinois just as it is? They rule. And once again you, taxpayer, lose.
Taxpayers Loose

Chicago, IL

#13 Jun 2, 2013
Chicago Way Petulance wrote:
But hey, they're still there, with big majorities in their respective chambers, and with custom-drawn legislative maps to assure them future clout.
These aren't bad men. As we've said before, they want what's best for Illinois — provided they don't have to seriously affront the public employees unions and other supplicants that reward them with campaign money and muscle.
On Friday, Madigan and Cullerton put the rest of us in our place. Those supplicants who like Illinois just as it is? They rule. And once again you, taxpayer, lose.
As long as things remain business as usual and debts are not paid the taxpayers will continue to loose state and city wide. Taxpayers and businesses will be taxed and driven out of Il. until there is no tax base left. Look at the exodus from Chicago, Ford Heights, Bridgeview, Markham, Blue Island, Midlothian, Dolton, Country Club Hills, Robbins, or Salk Village.
Not A Good Look

Chicago, IL

#14 Jun 7, 2013
It Is time to retire, Mike when you can't and don't show up for work to attack the most serious state level issues. Reportedly on vacation and filmed by Ch 7 news running away from tv reporters.
Another Madigan Failure

Chicago, IL

#15 Jun 8, 2013
The South Side's trauma care crisis

If you suffer a traumatic injury in the southern parts of Chicago or Cook Country, survival is a crapshoot.

There’s a big question for a trauma patients: Will I survive the ride to the nearest trauma center on 95th Street? Many don’t.

In late may, a shooting victim in Calumet City died en route to Advocate Christ Medical Center in Oak Lawn (“Chicago man fatally shot in Calumet City,” News, May 23). This case is emblematic of a system that is out of whack.

The individuals and agencies responsible for this state of affairs need to be run out of town. Their short-sighted planning has resulted in countless citizens with restricted access to prompt medical attention. In trauma cases, a few minutes can mean the difference between life and death.
Western Cashew

Frankfort, IL

#16 Jun 8, 2013
They named a sweater after his father, right? He can't be that bad!
Seriously

Chicago, IL

#17 Jun 8, 2013
Another Madigan Failure wrote:
The South Side's trauma care crisis
If you suffer a traumatic injury in the southern parts of Chicago or Cook Country, survival is a crapshoot.
There’s a big question for a trauma patients: Will I survive the ride to the nearest trauma center on 95th Street? Many don’t.
In late may, a shooting victim in Calumet City died en route to Advocate Christ Medical Center in Oak Lawn (“Chicago man fatally shot in Calumet City,” News, May 23). This case is emblematic of a system that is out of whack.
The individuals and agencies responsible for this state of affairs need to be run out of town. Their short-sighted planning has resulted in countless citizens with restricted access to prompt medical attention. In trauma cases, a few minutes can mean the difference between life and death.
IL. taxpayers have long been forgotten at multiple levels starting in Springfield and ending on the block where you live.
More Indictments Needed

Chicago, IL

#18 Jun 8, 2013
Indictments are long over due for the rest of elected officials who have thought they were above the law. Back room deals, bizarre appointments, secret meetings, are violations. Any and All elected officials in violation should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
William

Chicago, IL

#19 Jun 9, 2013
"The question for voters to ask, and urgently: Have our leaders so profoundly abused and neglected Illinois that rescuing it is beyond their limited capacities?"

No the real question is, "How much longer will the voters of this state elect leaders who abuse, and neglect Illinois for personal profit?"

Name "one" elected leader that has been affected as much as the average citizen by his or her actions, or inactions!

Gutierrez went from a total net worth of $47K, to over $2 million in four years! Look it up on the government gone wild site under "the list".
THINK TERM LIMITS

San Jose, CA

#20 Jun 13, 2013
Madigan goes against Quinn on pension reform




SPRINGFIELD — House Speaker Michael Madigan on Wednesday tried to increase the pressure on fellow Democrats in the Senate to get behind his version of pension reform and abandon their own as they head into Gov. Pat Quinn’s special session next week.

The Democratic governor wants lawmakers to vote on a bill that would combine the dueling House and Senate pension reform plans and let the courts determine what’s legal.

But Madigan made his position clear when he set a Tuesday hearing at the Capitol to remove Senate President John Cullerton’s rival pension plan from a bill pending in the House and sub in the speaker’s own proposal. That’s not what the governor wanted. The move signaled

Madigan is more interested in pushing Cullerton and Quinn toward rounding up more Senate votes for the speaker’s plan than reaching a compromise.

Madigan spokesman Steve Brown said the speaker stands by his version, which would reduce pension costs by about $187 billion over 30 years — about three times that of the Cullerton legislation.“It really is the best approach to take,” Brown said.

Before his latest proposal to vote on the combined plan, Quinn had most strongly backed Madigan’s version. On Wednesday, Quinn spokeswoman Brooke Anderson said Madigan and Cullerton must work in good faith toward a resolution, repeating the administration’s estimate that the stalemate over pensions costs Illinois $17 million a day.

Anderson said Quinn has called for a Friday meeting with Madigan and Cullerton and the two Republican leaders — Rep. Tom Cross of Oswego and Sen. Christine Radogno of Lemont.

Quinn met separately with the Democratic leaders on Monday and Republican leaders on Tuesday, Anderson said.

Madigan has pushed through the House a proposal that would require workers to kick in more from their paychecks, scale back cost-of-living increases on retirement checks and raise the retirement age. In turn, Cullerton pushed through the Senate a proposal that gave workers a choice, such as giving up health care to keep full pension benefits, as a way to meet a constitutional test that pension benefits cannot be diminished or impaired once established. Cullerton has maintained Madigan’s plan is unconstitutional, but the speaker has contended his would be upheld.

Madigan’s committee hearing is scheduled for the day before Wednesday’s special session. Madigan would replace the Cullerton proposal with the speaker’s own plan with one change. It would push back the effective date of the bill to next year, a change that would allow the plan to pass both chambers with only a simple majority vote. The plan Madigan already sent to the Senate would need a three-fifths vote because lawmakers missed the May 31 deadline to pass a bill that could take effect sooner.

Cullerton already called Madigan’s plan in the Senate once shortly before the deadline, and it only garnered 16 of the 30 votes needed to pass. Getting to 30 votes for the Madigan plan may be tough, but the speaker wants Quinn and Cullerton to coax senators to go along.

“If you look closely at the roll call, there are a lot of senators who could be lobbied heavily on this issue,” Brown said.“We'll take another crack at passing the bill.”

Cullerton spokeswoman Rikeesha Phelon said Madigan’s maneuver may delay or derail any compromise.“At this point there is no clear indication that a resolution will be reached by next week since the speaker has made no commitment to call Cullerton's pension plan or a compromise bill,” she said in a written statement.

Furthermore, Phelon said, the president still thinks House members should get to vote on the Senate version as it had “passed overwhelmingly” in the upper chamber in the session.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 11
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Dixmoor Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
public hearing tomorrow night 1 hr organization 79
State Rep 28th Bob Rita is not addressing the ... (Jul '14) 2 hr Missed one 100
Is this Oak forest forum or forum for Orphan ci... 5 hr 3decades in the d... 2
You're an old time Riverdale/Dolton resident if... (Nov '09) 6 hr Elaine from River... 971
Poll Calumet Park Police Reputation (Mar '09) 8 hr COP WATCHER 436
12 Hour shifts will bleed the taxpayers dry (Aug '15) 18 hr Stay on topic 67
Public hearing for ward revision Sat HAIL CASA 124
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Dixmoor Mortgages