Category Archives: The Left

Fund Planned Parenthood, You Anti-Feminist Woman Hater!

Arizona Congressmen Introduce Grant’s Law to Fight the Border Invasion

Washington, D.C. — Rep. Matt Salmon (AZ-05) today issued the following statement on news that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) had released three dangerous illegal aliens into Pinal County, Arizona.

“Despite the repeated attacks on American citizens by illegal aliens released from our jails, DHS refuses to stop freeing violent criminals who are in our country illegally.  Just yesterday, we learned of three more individuals set free on law-abiding Arizonans by the Department of Homeland Security.  Their crimes included the beating to death of a seven-week-old baby and the stabbing, beating, and immolation of a police informant.

“Our Department of Homeland Security needs to focus more on securing our homeland, not on cornering the market as a transportation option for illegal aliens in the United States.  Americans need protection from violent criminals and an explanation for why DHS has been so miserably failing at their primary task.  How many more Americans must be murdered by illegal alien criminals before this administration begins taking the safety of Americans seriously?”

A copy of the letter Rep. Salmon sent to DHS Secretary Johnson on yesterday’s news is available here.

Carson, BLM Clash on Issues

By John Semmens – Semi-News — A Satirical Look at Recent News

JohnGOP presidential hopeful Dr. Ben Carson and leaders of the Black Lives Matter movement clashed this week following Carson’s assertion that BLM is “creating strife.” As Carson sees it, “Blacks have been led down a dead-end road to dependency and murder via abortion by Democrat policies.”

The message that Democrats are sending by their support for the welfare state is that Blacks can’t make it on their own efforts,” Carson argued. “This is ridiculous. Blacks are as capable as whites if they apply their God-given talents to the world around them.”

The candidate was even more critical of Democrats’ unwavering support for taxpayer financed abortions, which he called “the leading cause of death in the Black community. More Black children are killed by abortion than by gang wars or cops.”

BLM co-founder Alicia Garza rejected Carson’s view. “The issue isn’t whether Blacks are capable of making their own way, but whether they should have to,” Garza said. “For centuries white plantation owners who were capable of supporting themselves depended on the labors of Black slaves. The government benefits Blacks are now receiving are a small down payment on the reparations owed for that debt.”

And Carson’s characterization of abortion as the leading cause of death for Blacks completely misses the point,” Garza continued. “All the Black babies terminated by abortion free Black women from the oppression of unwanted motherhood. These are women taking charge of their reproductive processes. These are women liberating themselves from burdens they choose not to bear. For Carson to compare these acts of self-liberation to cops shooting Blacks is shameful.”

Garza warned Carson that “he shouldn’t think himself immune to our wrath. We shut up O’Malley, we took away Sanders’ microphone, we drove Bush from the stage. We will make Carson rue the day that he chose to challenge our message.”

Court Rejects Challenge to Executive Amnesty

The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia rejected Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s bid to halt President Obama’s executive grant of amnesty to those in the country illegally, calling the Sheriff’s reasoning “tenuous” and “unduly speculative.”

First, the argument that the grant of amnesty is imposing extra burdens on the Sheriff’s office cannot be supported by the facts,” Judge Nina Pillard wrote. “The laws against entering this country illegally are federal laws. The federal government has made it clear that it does not intend to enforce these laws. Sheriff Arpaio cannot claim his office is being burdened if he insists on doing something the feds don’t want done.”

The federal policy against enforcement renders moot the Sheriff’s contention that amnesty will attract even more illegal migrants into his state,” Pillard added. “As it stands, illegal migrants are already entitled to all the benefits available to legal residents, regardless of whether any formal amnesty is given. The lure of subsidized food, housing, education, and health care is sufficient on its own to lure illegal entry even in the absence of amnesty. Given that 80% of the illegal entrants in California are living off public assistance, it seems likely that Arizona is merely a place that these people will pass through on their way to greener pastures to the west. Therefore, the relief the plaintiff seeks is likely to be achieved by the mere passage of time.”

Obama Admin Urges Court to Block Restitution to Terror Victims

Deputy Secretary of State Tony Blinken argued against the imposition of jury-awarded damages to the victims of Palestinian terrorist attacks in 2002-2004. The jury award of more than $200 million in actual damages to ten families with three dozen injured, maimed, or killed is vigorously opposed by the Obama Administration.

Despite proclaiming its sympathy for the victims, the Administration seeks to void the damage award because, according to Blinken, “the amount represents a significant share of the Palestinian Authority’s annual budget. The loss of so large an amount would seriously infringe upon the PA’s ability to carry out its functions. Rocket attacks on Israeli civilians—the PA’s only tool to avert Zionist oppression of Palestinians—would have to be severely curtailed. Tunnel construction into the territories occupied by Israel would be dramatically impeded. Training and arming infiltrators would be brought to a standstill.”

Blinken hastened to point out that his remarks were “not an endorsement of PA policies that some might construe as ‘provocative.’ We may not agree with how the PA conducts itself, but we can take a stand in favor of the general principle that a sovereign state must have the freedom and the resources to act as it sees fit.”

In related news, Blinken refused to condemn the Islamic State’s legalization of rape and sexual slavery. “Granted, the idea of raping unbelievers and selling them as sex-slaves may seem odd to our ears,” Blinken conceded. “But if we believe in freedom of religion we ought to respect practices that differ from ours.”

Newly Released Emails Said to Exonerate Lerner

A newly released batch of emails from Lois Lerner, former IRS official in charge of denying conservative groups the same tax-free status as left-leaning groups, is said to have largely exonerated her of charges of unwarranted discrimination.

Attorney General Loretta Lynch cited email content in which Lerner referred to conservative groups as “evil and dishonest” as “fundamentally exculpatory. As a public servant, Ms. Lerner was certainly within her rights and duties to block the misuse of tax-exempt status to groups that in her mind posed a genuine danger to the government. While conservatives might be expected to disagree with her apprehension, there can be no dispute that her perception was heartfelt.”

Lynch concluded that “as far as we are concerned, there is no cause for further investigation, much less possible prosecution. Ms. Lynch was doing her duty as she saw it. In the government bureaucracy, sloth and dereliction of duty is all too common. Zeal is too rare. It is tragic enough that Ms. Lerner has been hounded out of office by right-wing extremists. It is time that the GOP hell-hounds in Congress let this woman try to rebuild her life free from further persecution.”

Obama Vetoes Planned Parenthood Defunding

Efforts by the legislatures of Louisiana and Alabama to reduce public funds allocated to Planned Parenthood this week were vetoed by President Obama. The president dismissed arguments that videos revealing PP’s participation in illegal trafficking in used baby parts warranted the states’ actions.

I learned in law school that the rule in our country is ‘innocent until proven guilty,’” Obama recalled. “Attorney General Lynch hasn’t deemed there is enough evidence to justify an investigation, much less a prosecution, trial, and verdict. These states’ attempts to inflict punishment before the judicial process has been given a fair chance to work does not live up to our standards.”

The president also ventured an opinion that “there may be nothing to this whole so-called scandal. I watch TV news every night and I don’t recall seeing any of these alleged incriminating videos. Surely, these ratings-hungry media outlets would be all over this story if it were legitimate.”

Obama appeared to be undaunted by the unprecedented action of a president vetoing a state law, citing his own authority as a constitutional scholar. “There is a clause in the US Constitution authorizing the federal government to do whatever is ‘necessary and proper.’ What could be more necessary and proper than to prevent a state legislature from penalizing an organization before it is convicted of a crime?”

David Daleiden, head of The Center for Medical Progress—the organization that released the videos, characterized the president’s stance as “willful blindness dedicated to preserving a cruel and criminal enterprise” and wondered “whether the $25 million the principal officers of Planned Parenthood have donated to the Democratic Party may have played a role in shaping his response to this organization’s continuing atrocities.”

Hillary Makes Bid for Latino Vote

Democrat presidential contender Hillary Clinton told a Spanish-language TV station Univision audience that she will make rich Americans pay the travel expenses of illegal immigrants. This is in contrast to GOP contender Donald Trump’s boast that he will make the Mexican government pay to build a border fence to keep illegal immigrants out.

Realistically, there’s no way an American president can make Mexico pay for anything,” Clinton asserted. “Why should the Mexican government pay for a fence? An open border allows their surplus population to escape to the United States where a generous slate of benefits awaits them.”

On the flip side, though, an American president has lots of leverage for extracting money from its taxpayers,” Clinton said. “With both the FBI and the NSA under the president’s control I’m sure I will have the information I need to persuade Congress to levy the necessary taxes. Or I could just issue an executive order or memo. One way or another, I’ll get the job done. People who make the arduous and dangerous trek to come to this country shouldn’t have to pay their own way.”

Illegal Immigrants Sue for Millions

Five illegal immigrants from Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador have filed a multi-million dollar lawsuit against the federal government. As their lawyer Andrew Free explained, “they came to this country to exercise their Constitutional right to share in its abundance. Yet, unlike the Mexicans who got here before them they’ve been denied free food, free housing, free education, and free health care. Instead, they been detained in squalid conditions as if they were common criminals.”

Free called this lawsuit “merely the opening salvo in a protracted struggle for social justice. There are thousands, maybe millions, of future plaintiffs. We will carve up the golden goose until all her eggs have been fairly distributed to the world’s poor.”

It’s not only illegal immigrants angling for a piece of the action. Retired Cuban dictator Fidel Castro says “the United States owes every one of Cuba’s 11 million people substantial damages for the cruel and vicious embargo it imposed on our country for over 50 years.” In response to Castro’s demand for money, the Obama Administration has dispatched its crack negotiator—Secretary of State John Kerry—to hammer out a settlement.

In related news, racial justice expert Al Sharpton slammed GOP presidential hopeful Sen. Rand Paul’s claim that hard work is a path to financial success. “The claim is demonstrably false,” Sharpton contended. “I’ve never worked hard, yet I’m drawing six figures just for talking on TV. From my experience, luck and knowing the right people are what really brings home the big bucks.”

A Satirical Look at Recent News

John Semmens is a retired economist who has written a weekly political satire for The Arizona Conservative since 2005. He says working on his satires is one of the ways he tries to honor the liberties our Founding Fathers tried to protect. 

Please do us a favor. If you uses material created by The Arizona Conservative, give us credit and DO NOT change the context. Thank you.

Lite Rail a Trainwreck, Derails Rationale for Prop 104

The contention that light rail is a good investment because “it serves nearly as many people as SR 51” is a ludicrous distortion of reality.

Even if we allow for the absurd comparison of the ridership for the ENTIRE light rail system to be compared with this single freeway we can observe that SR 51 carries over 150,000 vehicles per day at its busiest point near the junction with I-10 to over 80,000 at its least busy point near the outer loop. This is 100 percent more than the  touted 43,000 riders per day for all light rail routes combined.

Light rail is, and forever will be, a tiny contributor to the region’s mobility. Its less than 100 million passenger miles per year pales in comparison to the Phoenix freeways’ 11 billion vehicle miles of travel and the street system’s 30 billion vehicle miles of travel. Yet, Prop 104’s allocation of funds plans to spend only 7 percent of the revenues on roads–3 percent to add lanes and 4 percent to remove lanes to make way for bike paths, pedestrians, and light rail trains.

In contrast, Prop 104 plans to spend 40 percent of the revenues on a light rail system that will accommodate only three-tenths of one-percent of travel. This is an unbalanced allocation that compels the 99 percent who drive to heavily subsidize the less than 1 percent who use rail transit. Lest we think that these subsidies to light rail are aimed at helping the poor, Valley Metro boasts that rail is attracting more higher income riders.

Here’s the deal: if Prop 104 passes or if it voted down–either way–99 percent of travel in the city will continue to take place in automobiles. Light rail will play an insignificant role in how people move about the community. Is this insignificant impact worth taking on all the burdens of deficits, debt, and higher taxes that Prop 104 will impose?

John Semmens, retired transportation economist
Chandler

Dark Money

By The Goldwater Institute

The proponents of mandatory reporting of private civic activities have won a major marketing victory by the widespread use of the phrase, “dark money.”  As one commentator put it, “Dark money.  The name itself carries ominous undertones, undertones that critics of this relatively new campaign-finance phenomenon claim reflect a genuine threat to democracy.”[x]  But the term is misleading.  “Dark money” would be more aptly referred to by what those who find free speech objectionable actually support – mandated government disclosure.  The use of such terms is intended to cast suspicion on those who contribute to various civic causes so the debate revolves around ad hominem attacks rather than engaging on the issues.

So, what is “dark money”?  It conjures images of shady political operatives greasing the palms of politicians in dark, smoked-filled rooms.  But does it also apply to traditional political activities, like you and your neighbor contributing your time and money to civic and social activities that you support?  And is it really a threat to democracy, or are those who seek to silence the voice of opposition and limit speech the real threats?

“Dark money” generally refers to funds spent for political activities by businesses, unions, nonprofit organizations, and individuals who are not required by law to disclose the identities of their donors.  Depending on where supporters of government disclosure draw the inherently arbitrary line, dark money could refer to donations made to the American Civil Liberties Union (“ACLU”) or to your local church or soup kitchen.

As a general matter, all spending that calls for the election or defeat of a political candidate or constitutes “electioneering communications” involves some level of disclosure to the government.  In fact, there are more disclosure obligations on the books today than at any other time in our nation’s history.[xi]  Nevertheless, some supporters of government disclosure claim that current laws do not go far enough.  They assert that certain charitable and social welfare organizations, including those organized under § 501(c) of the federal tax code, should be forced to disclose the identities of their individual donors when those organizations engage in political activity, even if that is not their primary function.[xii]

Those calling for the elimination of “dark money” are thus attempting to dramatically extend the reach of government-mandated disclosure to a wide variety of organizations, activities, and communications.

Advocates for expanded disclosure call for such dramatic and far-reaching regulations despite the fact that “dark money” is not a pervasive element in American politics. Some government disclosure advocates claim that so-called “dark money” expenditures constitute a significant portion of political spending in the United States.[xiii]  But the characterization is inaccurate.  In the 2014 election cycle, the Federal Elections Commission reported approximately $5.9 billion in total spending on federal elections.[xiv]  Of that $5.9 billion, roughly $173 million came from groups that are not required by law to disclose donors.[xv]  This represents a mere 2.9 percent of all spending on federal elections – hardly a significant portion.  In fact, this figure represents a decline from the 2012 election cycle, where such expenditures amounted to 4.4 percent of spending on federal races.[xvi]  As the Center for Competitive Politics observed from the 2012 election cycle, “Nearly all of the organizations that financed such independent expenditures . . . were well-known entities, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the League of Conservation Voters, the National Rifle Association, Planned Parenthood, the National Association of Realtors, the National Federation of Independent Business, NARAL Pro-Choice America, and the Humane Society.”[xvii]  As a result, there is no secret as to what causes and issues such groups support.

Under existing campaign finance laws, the identities of these groups must be revealed when making direct contributions to candidates or political parties or engaging in other electioneering communications.  Additionally, donor identities must be disclosed when they specifically earmark their donations to nonprofit organizations to be used for electioneering communications.  Those types of donations can hardly be characterized as “dark money” in need of further regulation when under existing disclosure rules, anyone can see that the NRA contributed to Candidate X and Planned Parenthood contributed to Candidate Y.  The positions of those organizations are well known.  Characterizing those expenditures as “dark money” is, therefore, disingenuous.  But forcing further disclosure of donor identities is at best unnecessary, as donors may contribute to organizations to support the overall mission rather than any specific political candidate.  Their donations are intended to support certain issues, not politicians.

Claims that “dark money” is distorting American politics are even more tenuous when leveled at 501(c)(3)s, considering these nonprofit organizations are prohibited from participating in any partisan political activity.

Casino Gambling in Arizona Claims More Victims

Gambling and casinos have caused a lot of problems in Arizona and every other state where they are legal. Many have succumbed to gambling addiction, stolen from their employers and broken up their families and marriages. The sad story that follows isn’t the first in Arizona and it won’t be the last — not as long as we have legalized gambling. Some say, “oh but the money builds roads and schools.” The bottom line? It’s ill-gotten gain off the backs of shattered lives and broken families. This is a dark day for a culture in decline.

Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich announced the sentencing of Larry Dahl, a former Phoenix attorney. Dahl was sentenced to 3.25 years in prison and seven years supervised probation after defrauding his former clients of $2,940,439.

“The defendant stole millions of dollars from his clients to fuel a gambling addiction,” said Attorney General Mark Brnovich. “Dahl was in a position of trust and he abused that trust. The Attorney General’s Office takes these cases very seriously.”

In addition to his prison sentence, the Honorable Jay Adleman ordered Dahl to pay $2,940,439 to the former clients he defrauded. In 2013, Dahl was indicted on 20 felony counts accused of embezzling money from client funds for nearly 5 years, from January 2001 to January 2005. Over that time period, Dahl gambled the $2,940,439 he had stolen at various casinos and lost the entire sum.

Dahl embezzled client funds directly from their interest-bearing money market accounts by writing checks payable to himself. To perpetuate this scheme, Dahl frequently transferred money between 46 client money market accounts to create the illusion of accurate individual account balances.

On June 25, 2015, Dahl pled guilty to three felony offenses: Fraudulent Schemes and Artifices, Money Laundering and Theft.

Mr. Dahl was disbarred in 2006.

Assistant Attorney General Brett Harames prosecuted this case.

The Ugly Face of Planned Parenthood: Margaret Sanger

Arizona Congressional Democrats Accepted Money from Big Abortion’s King — Planned Parenthood

During the 2014 election cycle, four Democrats accepted campaign cash from Planned Parenthood — the notorious abortion factory under intense national scrutiny for illegal sales of baby parts and alleged fraud.

Current Congressmen Ann Kirkpatrick, Kyrsten Sinema, Raul Grijalva and former Congressman Ron Barber all accepted money from Planned Parenthood last year.

Kirkpatrick received $10,850, the second-highest total of any Democrat House candidate.

Sinema ranked fourth among House Democrats with $10,300 received from Planned Parenthood.

Incumbent Ron Barber, who lost to conservative Martha McSally, held out his hand for $5,566 in Planned Parenthood cash.

And Cong. Grijalva, also head of the largest socialist organization in Congress, grabbed $1,000 from Planned Parenthood.

Concerned Americans are calling for criminal investigations of Planned Parenthood for selling baby parts.

Several states and Congress are debating de-funding Planned Parenthood, a profit-driven abortion factory that receives more than half a billion tax dollars annually.

Several state audits have revealed that Planned Parenthood makes a regular habit of improperly billing the government for services and products neither requested nor received by citizens.

The late racist Margaret Sanger was instrumental in starting up Planned Parenthood. And a disproportionate number of PP abortion mills are located in minority neighborhoods in Arizona and nationally.

As if that isn’t enough: Planned Parenthood failed to report the rapes of underage girls in Tempe and Colorado, allowing the abusers to continue victimizing young girls. Planned Parenthood is required by law to report the pregnancies of underage girls to legal authorities, but refused to do so in order to maximize profits.

Should Sen. McCain and Sen. Flake Vote in Favor of Obama’s Iran Deal?

DHS Documents Show 260 Criminal Illegal Aliens Criminals Released in Arizona in Just Three Weeks

Judicial Watch announced it obtained records from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) revealing that nearly 260 illegal alien criminals, including 40 incarcerated for violent crimes, were released from Arizona detention facilities during the last week of February and the first two weeks of March 2013. After first denying that the mass release had taken place, the Obama administration claimed the releases were due to the anticipated sequestration budget cuts. The newly obtained records were uncovered because of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch on behalf of Edward Tuffly, a Tucson, AZ, resident (Edward “Bud” Tuffly v. U. S. Department of Homeland Security (No. 2:15-cv-00067)).

Judicial Watch filed the lawsuit for Mr. Tuffly in January 2015 after DHS failed to respond to his November 10, 2014, FOIA request of U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) seeking the following information:

  • Records sufficient to identify all ICE detainees released in late February or early March 2013 from the following detention facilities due to alleged fiscal or budget uncertainty: (a) Central Arizona Correctional Center in Florence, Arizona: (b) Eloy Detention Center in Eloy, Arizona; (c) Florence Correctional Center in Florence, Arizona; (d) Florence SPC in Florence, Arizona; and (e) Pinal County Adult Detention Center in Florence, Arizona.
  • For each detainee identified in response to Request No.1, the I-213 form(s) documenting the detainee’s arrest.
  • For each detainee identified in response to Request No.1, records sufficient to identify: (a) the date the detainee was released; (b) the facility from which the detainee was released; (c) the detainee’s criminal history or criminal charges at the time of release; (d) methods of supervision to which the detainee was subjected; and (e) whether the detainee appeared for subsequent removal or other proceedings and/or was removed from the United States.

The date range for the requested records was February 22 through March 15, 2013. This was the period during which DHS released more than 2000 illegal aliens nationwide, later claiming the release was “solely for budgetary reasons,” though none of the anticipated sequestration budget cuts had yet taken place.

Among the nearly 260 illegal aliens released from five Arizona correction facilities at the time were nearly 40 violent criminals who had been arrested for crimes including assault, domestic violence, weapons offenses, and battery. Nearly one in five had been arrested for drunk driving. The full list is below:

Traffic Offense:  57

Driving Under Influence Liquor: 55

Disorderly Conduct: 15

Failure to Appear: 14

Illegal Entry: 13

Assault: 9

Drug Trafficking: 9

Shoplifting: 8

Larceny: 8

Making False Report: 6

Drug Possession: 6

Weapons Offense: 6

Forgery: 5

Domestic Violence: 4

Trespassing: 4

Damage Property: 4

Prostitution: 4

Liquor: 3

Marijuana: 3

Damage Property—Private: 3

Probation Violation: 3

Liquor Possession: 2

Identity Theft: 2

Battery: 2

Contributing to Delinquency of Minor: 2

Commercial Sex: 2

Fraud—False Statement: 2

Fraud—Impersonating: 2

Public Order Crimes: 2

Violation of a Court Order: 2

Robbery—Street Gun: 2

Robbery: 2

Narcotics Equip—Possession: 2

Intimidation: 2

Morals—Decency Crimes:  1

Identity Theft: 1

Cruelty Toward Wife: 1

Smuggling: 1

Smuggling Aliens: 1

Fraud: 1

Licensing Offense: 1

Stolen Vehicle: 1

Licensing Violation: 1

Obstruct Criminal Investigation: 1

Firing Weapon: 1

Resisting Officer: 1

Burglary Tools—Possession: 1

Threat to Burn: 1

Receive Stolen Property: 1

Hit and Run: 1

Obstruct Police: 1

Possession of a Weapon: 1

The Obama administration is refusing to divulge the names of the released criminals, which prevents law enforcement from protecting the public or notifying victims. Local authorities in Arizona, such as Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu, have tried unsuccessfully to obtain information about this and other criminal alien releases by the Obama administration.  In 2014, a Judicial Watch lawsuit forced the release of 76 pages of Department of Homeland Security (DHS) documents revealing that as of April 2014, ICE had released 165,900 convicted criminal aliens throughout the United States, including many convicted of such violent crimes as homicide, sexual assault, kidnapping, and aggravated assault.

Judicial Watch is a long-time national leader in advocating for the rule-of-law approach to illegal immigration.  This work includes exposing and challenging dangerous sanctuary policies in Pennsylvania, Virginia, Washington, D.C., Maryland, Arizona, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, and more.  For example, in 2011, as a result of Judicial Watch’s work, San Francisco was ordered to end its sanctuary policy that protected aliens arrested for certain drug offenses from being reported to ICE.

Judicial Watch also filed a lawsuit in Chicago challenging Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart’s refusal to honor ICE immigration detainers or cooperate with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in identifying deportable criminal aliens.  Cook County jails have released well over 1,000 criminal aliens sought by ICE in the 18 months prior the lawsuit’s filing in 2013.  The suit is now before the Illinois Supreme Court.

The lawsuit, Brian McCann v. Thomas J. Dart, is on behalf of lifetime Chicago resident Brian McCann, whose brother William “Denny” McCann, was run over and killed in June 2011 by an unlawfully present criminal alien who had just completed a two-year term of probation for a 2009 DUI conviction.  The alien, Saul Chavez, was charged with felony aggravated driving under the influence, but was released by the Sheriff from a Cook County jail in November 2011 despite an ICE immigration detainer.

“The Obama Administration is obsessed with supporting nationwide sanctuary and unlawful amnesty for illegal aliens – even illegal aliens who have committed violent crimes,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.  “These new documents show the Obama administration’s soft-on-crime approach to illegal alien crime is a clear and present danger to the safety of innocent Americans.”