How will Arizona know where to deport people?

I'm not really for or against the Arizona immigration bill. I am most definitely offended by California and Los Angeles politicians getting involved in an arizona boycott when California failed to balance their own budget. California has not even come close to balancing their own budget and California politicians should clean up their own act before judging others.

I have also not read the Arizona immigration bill yet so i don't have an opinion for that reason. How will Arizona or the United States know where to send anybody who is either not properly identified, or just refuses to divulge where they are "from"?

I suppose if any american refuses to identify themselves when a police officer asks for Identification we might find ourselves in jail, so I guess the same thing would apply in Arizona. It seems to me that one way to defuse the law is for tens of thousands of "illegal" immigrants to turn themselves in, but not divulge what country they are from.

Possibly one stumbling block to this idea is that Arizona sheriff that keeps suspected illegal immigrants in those tents in 115 degree temperatures and perhaps even higher. Probably a violation of international prison guidelines.

Please Download the Chase Bank Protest Flyer for FREE, and then all that needs to be done is just give a few copies out, it is really that simple.

Lets Get Ready to Rumble! Not! Bill Clinton and George Bush do the right thing and cancel their Los Angeles and New York "Cage Match Debates".

Apparently an overzealous promoter kept amping up the PR regarding two panel discussions that was to feature Bill Clinton and George Bush. Instead of the two former presidents meeting to discuss issues based on their presidential experience, the promoter of the event chose to publicize there appearance as a "debate" between two former presidents.

If this is true, than the promoter is an idiot in my opinion. It makes me wonder how they rose to such a position of importance that they could be trusted to promote such an important event.

I wonder if the promoter was envisioning a G. Gordon Liddy vs Timothy Leary series of debates between Bush and Clinton. If so, how could anyone be that misguided, and disrespectful of our two former presidents?

Click on this sentence to read the entire story at the LA Times.

One could argue that their appearance fee was "too low" at 150,000 dollars each. But I don't think that was it at all. I just think they realize how easily the press capitulates to stupid PR angles and decided not to be a part of it.

Please Download the Chase Bank Protest Flyer for FREE, and then all that needs to be done is just give a few copies out, it is really that simple.

Federal Judge orders Los Angeles City to Allow REALLY HUGE, OBNOXIOUS BILLBOARD ADVERTISING that Covers Entire Sides of Huge Hotels.

Photo from PSFK.com  (photo removed for copyright reasons)

It looks like World Wide Rush LLC and Sky Tag Inc., will get to blight the city of Los Angeles with huge billboards that hang from the side of really large buildings. 

 

I think Judge Audrey B. Collins erred in allowing World Wide Rush to basically get their way when it comes to hanging HUGE billboards from the sides of Hotels that can be seen from Los Angeles freeways and that are visible from freeway off ramps and freeway interchanges. It is kind of freakish to think that when I am driving a car I have to actually avert my eyes from distractions that are designed to, distract me into looking. 

 

Maybe Judge Collins assumed that the huge billboards will cause the drivers to look back up at the road from their text messaging and pay attention, sort of like, two wrongs, looking into one laps while text messaging, and looking into the skyline at huge billboard ads will cancel each other out and cause the driver to actually just look at the road directly ahead. There are other issues to consider, that is for sure. 

 

A hotel that is barely making it financially might find the revenue they receive from the billboard advertising to be the difference maker in being able to pay their California state and local taxes, oh the irony of that one. 

 

If the judge is forcing the city of Los Angeles to comply to the whims of "free speech bill board entrepreneurs", can a driver who is distracted by the huge billboards and causes a severe accident then sue the city of Los Angeles as well? 

 

Can the judge make a motion to deny all such lawsuits in advance? Or at least protect the city of Los Angeles from such lawsuits? Will car insurance companies raise their rates to those who drive by these huge billboards, thereby once again making it JOE citizen the one who ultimately subsidizes these ads? 

 

Or has the judge basically said that L.A. must allow huge, distracting billboards, and then allow citizens of L.A. to sue when those signs cause an accident, while also allowing insurance companies to raise their rates in these areas. Now that is one heck of a stimulus package. 

 

Or should we call it a scrumulous package? What if the ads are for fraud driven products? Is there a psychological ploy at work in which seeing something so ostentatiously presented must mean it is either ethical or truthful? Will politicians be on these huge billboards in the not too distant future? 

 

Big Brother Consumerism towers over U.S.

Link to Photo that was removed for copyright reasons.