The Paris terror attacks may have put a clamp on President Obama’s plans to resettle 10,000 Syrian refugees over the next year, as the number of governors saying they won’t take them swells.
At the same time, top congressional lawmakers are urging the administration to halt the plan. House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Michael McCaul called on Obama to “temporarily suspend the admission of all additional Syrian refugees” pending a “full review,” according to a letter obtained by Fox News.
The resistance at the state level is coalescing at a rapid clip. So far, governors in at least 17 states have moved to suspend or restrict the refugee resettlement, including Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, North Carolina, Ohio, Texas and Wisconsin.
“Given the tragic attacks in Paris and the threats we have already seen, Texas cannot participate in any program that will result in Syrian refugees — any one of whom could be connected to terrorism — being resettled in Texas,” Texas Gov. Greg Abbott said in a letter to Obama.
Some of these states previously did not object to the refugee plan. But Friday night’s terror attack in Paris, which left at least 129 people dead, fueled fears that Islamic State militants are moving into Europe as part of the wave of refugees escaping the civil war, and could eye America next. Authorities say a Syrian passport found near one jihadist’s body had been registered last month and moved through three countries along a busy migrant corridor known for lax controls. (Read more from “Obama Plan for Syrian Refugees Scrambled by State Opposition” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2015-11-16 21:06:132016-04-11 10:56:04Obama Plan for Syrian Refugees Scrambled by State Opposition
This past week we saw a hideous contrast played out in real events, one whose irony was so twisted that it really seemed like fiction. This couldn’t be “what’s happening on the news.” It had to be the crescendo of some futuristic novel by a wannabe Ayn Rand or Frank Peretti.
Even as students in America whined for “safe spaces” devoid of pointy-edged free speech, several thousand French concert-goers discovered that the music venue they had chosen was not a safe space — not safe from terrorist butchers who wanted to slaughter Westerners in a venue owned by Jews. Thanks to the influx of almost a million Muslim colonists (sorry, “refugees”), no corner of Europe will soon be safe for Europeans, Jewish or Christian — because a certain percentage of Muslims will always take their religion seriously, and read its sacred texts literally, which will turn them into terrorists. Those who insist that ISIS “betrays” or “perverts” Islam can only cling to that comforting illusion by refusing to read its texts themselves.
This same weekend, we learn that the U.S. Supreme Court will review Texas’ laws regulating abortion clinics, laws made by citizens trying to make the womb at least a little bit safer for Texas babies.
And Al Gore is in Paris, trying to make the climate “safe” for the future by crippling the economy.
It’s all too much. Were we creative writing teachers and some student turned in such drek, we would slide it back to him covered in red ink, with the comments: “Tendentious, preachy, heavy-handed. Are you trying to write the next Atlas Shrugged?” No, irony this hamfisted could never cut it in fiction. Instead, we just have to live it.
Now the craving for “safety” is not contemptible. First of all, we want physical safety, for ourselves and our families. To attain this, it would be helpful if our communities were not honeycombed — as Europe has been through the callousness of its godless, soulless elites — with members of a religion which teaches that all non-members are rebels against God who deserve the death penalty. That’s a good first step, anyway.
More than a million Christians have been driven from their homes in Iraq and Syria, deprived of this basic safety, by Muslims who take their religion seriously. But most European nations will not grant these genuine refugees asylum in preference to waves of Muslim economic migrants, who passed through perfectly safe Muslim countries on their way to sign up for Danish or Belgian welfare benefits, and throng those countries’ radical mosques.
As National Review reports, the Obama administration is preparing to recognize the victims of ISIS’s genocide — explicitly excluding the hundreds of thousands of Christians threatened with death. While Europe’s bureaucracy processes the tens of thousands of orthodox, Quran-reading, sharia-supporting Muslims who flood across its borders, Christian victims shiver in storage containers and tents, wondering when the next ISIS advance will turn them into martyrs. And the world goes on, wringing its hands about whether European culture is sufficiently “inclusive” of the religion that set the persecution in motion.
Unborn children, in what should be the safest space on earth, are instead in the cross-hairs. A million will die this year in America, and as we have learned from the Planned Parenthood videos, they will be treated with the same contempt that ISIS shows towards its victims: cut up and thrown away, unless they are sold for profit, as ISIS sells the women it captures and enslaves.
The very leftists who want to help coddled 20-year-olds feel “safe” callously shrug off the physical safety of the world’s most vulnerable people: the preborn children of America and the Christians of the Middle East. Indeed, Progressives try to make victims out of the victors. We are supposed to feel sorry for Cecile Richards, because she had to go answer questions in front of Congress about the half-billion dollars she takes every year to wipe out American babies.
We are told we should worry not about Islamism but “Islamophobia,” a term which Andrew Cummins characterized with perfect accuracy: “A word created by fascists, and used by cowards, to manipulate morons.” The persecuted on campus, we’re told, are not Christians and conservatives whose speech is being silenced; the victims are the mass of angry leftists, whose widdle feewings are hurt when someone dares to disagree with them.
There is a covert, deep-seated alliance between both factions of the Culture of Death — those who would deal it to the unborn, in service of pleasure and convenience, and those who dish it out in the name of a totalitarian movement disguised as a religion. Neither group sees human life as intrinsically sacred, and neither feels bound by an inbuilt structure of reason and moral law that pervade reality, top to bottom. Both, in the end, believe in using violent force in the service of blind willfulness — the willfulness of the sexually active Westerner, or the will of Allah, as interpreted by the politically weaponized Muslim. There can be no moral limits to the exercise of that will, since will alone is supreme — the Will to Power.
A Nation is a Safe Space for a People
We should demand that our public authorities provide physical safety, which is supposed to be their main job. And we should ask for more. A nation is meant to be a “safe space” where a culture based on common values agrees on the most basic premises of life and death, good and evil. We should be “safe,” most of the time, from having to fight and re-fight the most fundamental battles, so we can get on with the business of living our principles in practice. It is not normal to live in a culture and country where you must constantly respond to radical questions like these:
Why should you be free to practice your false religion?
Why have you not submitted to Allah?
Why do you allow all these Jews to live in your midst?
Who are you to say what I do with the human being living in my uterus?
We have fostered monsters in our midst, the heirs of Margaret Sanger, eugenicist, elitist and libertine. And now we’re admitting millions who hold to a monstrous belief, which if put into practice would make non-Muslims slaves. These groups pretend to oppose each other, but in fact they are much alike, which explains why they work hand in glove against their common enemy: The civilization that was born on Easter morning, in the light of the risen Christ.
In that civilization, we see innocent life as sacred, and will die, even kill, to protect it. We see each person, believer or unbeliever, as the numinous image of God. When we’ve failed to live up to that vision it was despite our religion, not because of it, and the resources in our own scriptures led us to stop persecuting, stop enslaving, stop colonizing. By contrast, when modern secular hedonists become more self-consistent, they find new groups to dehumanize and kill: first the pre-born, then the elderly, then the handicapped and the sick — and some are even adding newborn children to the list. When Muslims get religion, far too many turn into Islamists — and get busy advancing a program of global theocracy.
Will we Christians wake up in time? It won’t be fun or make us friends. It will demand that we do things that liberals have taught us to see as “un-Christian.” We will have to expose the ugliness of our enemies’ ideas, and their bloodthirsty implications. And yes, we will have to name some as our “enemies.” Such an ugly word. It’s the kind of blunt talk we come across in … the Gospels. We must draw red lines and fight any who’d cross them.
We must choose a presidential candidate with a statesmanlike attachment to moral principle, and shun political alliances with anyone who doesn’t respect the life of the innocent. We must punish politicians who use the life issue cynically, or cave at moments of decision — such as the choice of Supreme Court appointees. We must work at every level of church, culture and politics to make the word “abortion” again what it was in 1950: an obscenity that no one would utter in polite company. Instead, they will prefer to say “the A-word.”
We must exclude those who’d come to our country while rejecting its basic freedoms. (Don’t worry — we can exercise compassion and fill up our refugee quotas with Christians fleeing Islamists for the foreseeable future.) When in doubt, we must say “No.” As the citizens of Paris learned so painfully this week, false compassion and political correctness kill.
We must militarily cripple regimes such as ISIS, and wean ourselves from alliance with that tyranny Saudi Arabia, which uses the money we send it via our gas tanks to spread sharia everywhere. We must give up hunting the unicorn that is Islamic democracy, and work with regimes in the region that try to keep Islamists out of power.
We should take advantage of the divisions among Muslims, between Sunni and Shiite, to divide and deter the next wave of jihadists. We should support those movements in Europe that are trying to keep that continent safe, and reject that parody of Christian kindness which calls for accepting a mass influx of proto-Islamist Muslims. It is not Christian, or even rational, to endanger our children and grandchildren for the sake of a warm, fuzzy feeling — the sensation the brain experiences as it slowly freezes to death. (For more from the author of “The Paris Attacks and Planned Parenthood: Flipsides of the Culture of Death” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2015-11-16 21:05:492016-04-11 10:56:04The Paris Attacks and Planned Parenthood: Flipsides of the Culture of Death
Judicial Watch today released more than 35 pages of emails former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s top aide Huma Abedin revealing that Abedin advised Clinton aide and frequent companion Monica Hanley that it was “very important” to go over phone calls with Clinton because the former Secretary of State was “often confused.” The emails, from Abedin’s “[email protected]” address, also reveal repeated security breaches, with the Secretary’s schedule and movements being sent and received through Abedin’s non-governmental and unsecured Clinton server account. The emails document requests for special State Department treatment for a Clinton Foundation associate and Abedin’s mother, a controversial Islamist leader.
The Abedin email material contains a January 26, 2013, email exchange with Clinton aide Monica Hanley regarding Clinton’s schedule in which Abedin says Clinton is “often confused:”
Abedin: Have you been going over her calls with her? So she knows singh is at 8? [India Prime Minister Manmohan Singh]
Hanley: She was in bed for a nap by the time I heard that she had an 8am call. Will go over with her
Abedin: Very imp to do that. She’s often confused.
The newly released Abedin emails included a lengthy exchange giving precise details of the Clinton schedule on the Secretary’s final full day in office, Wednesday, January 31, 2013. The email from Lona J. Valmoro, former Special Assistant to Secretary of State Clinton, to Abedin, other top State Department staff, and Clinton associates, reveals exact times (including driving times) and locations of all appointments throughout the day:
8:25 am DEPART Private Residence
En route to State Department
[drive time: 10 minutes]
***
1:40 pm DEPART State Department
En route to Council on Foreign Relations
[drive time: 15 minutes]
***
3:05 pm DEPART Council on Foreign Relations
En route to State Department
[drive time: 15 minutes]
***
6:00 pm DEPART State Department
En route to Private Residence
[drive time: 5 minutes]
The detailed schedule provided in the Abedin email contains an annotation reading: “The information contained in this email is not to be shared, forwarded or duplicated.”
Another Abedin email provides details about a meeting with Saudi Arabia’s leadership.
The Abedin correspondence includes several instances in which the Clinton top aide attempted to obtain special treatment from the State Department for business associates and relatives. In the first instance, Abedin apparently worked with Teneo co-founder and Clinton Global Initiative official Doug Band to intercede on behalf of an individual seeking a visa. In the second instance, Huma Abedin received an email from her mother, Saleha Abedin (a controversial Islamist activist) who founded and serves as dean at Dar al-Hekma University in Saudi Arabia. In the December 11, 2011, email, Saleha Abedin seeks the assistance of her daughter to help the president of her college, Dr. Suhair al Qurashi, attend a State Department “Women in Public Service” ceremony, which included remarks by Hillary Clinton. (Mrs. Clinton spoke at Dar al-Hekma University in 2010. Dr. Qurashi and Saleha Abedin introduced Mrs. Clinton’s speech and moderated the subsequent discussion.)
“Huma Abedin’s description of Hillary Clinton as ‘easily confused’ tells you all you need to know why it took a federal lawsuit to get these government emails from Clinton’s illegal email server ,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “These emails also show that Hillary Clinton’s and Huma Abedin’s decision to use the Clinton email server to conduct government business was dangerous and risky.”
The documents were obtained by Judicial Watch on October 30, 2015, in response to a June 5 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed against the State Department, after it failed to respond to a March 18 FOIA request seeking:
Emails of official State Department business received or sent by former Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin from January 1, 2009 through February 1, 2013 using a non-“state.gov” email address.
(For more from the author of “Newly Released Clinton Email Reveals Top Aide Huma Abedin Warning That Hillary Is “Often Confused”” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2015-11-16 21:05:302016-04-11 10:56:04Newly Released Clinton Email Reveals Top Aide Huma Abedin Warning That Hillary Is “Often Confused”
Even as the hunt continues for suspects in the Paris terror bombings, some Western intelligence officials have already identified their culprit: Edward Snowden.
London Mayor Boris Johnson says the former National Security Agency contractor, who two years ago outed the U.S. government’s program of telephone and Internet surveillance, effectively taught terrorists “how to avoid being caught.” CIA Director John Brennan complained Monday that “a number of unauthorized disclosures” in recent years about the extent of federal snooping has made tracking terrorists “much more challenging.” Snowden also drew a borderline-profane slam on Twitter over the weekend from former George W. Bush press secretary Dana Perino.
No evidence has surfaced yet that Snowden’s revelations made a difference in this case, or that the perpetrators of Friday’s attacks used encrypted communications to conceal their activities. Many private-sector computer specialists surveyed by POLITICO were skeptical about those arguments, which if true would mesh with more than a year of warnings from intelligence officials about the growing ability of terrorists and criminals to hide their tracks online.
Still, there’s no denying the political context. The criticism of Snowden comes as intelligence officials seek to reopen a debate over the balance between security and privacy — a balance that seemed, before the deaths of 129 individuals in Paris, to have been settled firmly in favor of civil liberties. U.S. intelligence and law enforcement officials have complained publicly that encryption tools — in iPhones, laptops and mobile software like Facebook-owned WhatsApp — allow terrorists, drug dealers and other criminals to “go dark” and avoid monitoring.
“We’ve had a public debate. That debate was defined by Edward Snowden, right, and the concern about privacy,” former CIA Deputy Director Michael Morell said Sunday on “Face the Nation.” “I think we’re now going to have another debate about that. It’s going to be defined by what happened in Paris.” (Read more from “Intelligence Officials Are Blaming Snowden for Paris” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2015-11-16 21:04:062016-04-11 10:56:04Intelligence Officials Are Blaming Snowden for Paris
On Saturday, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) reminded the media about a very important immigration security measure he introduced—one that was opposed by Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), one of his opponents for the presidential nomination. On June 19, 2013, Paul introduced an amendment [S.Amdt. 1200 to S. 744 (Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act)] to the Gang of Eight bill requiring DHS to establish a screening system for those who come from 27 predominantly Islamic countries on student visas. Rubio joined with the Democrats to scuttle it.
Rand Paul is absolutely correct to raise the red flag on student visas from the Middle East and take Rubio to task for obstructing the amendment.
In addition to the broader threat of Islamic immigration and refugees, one of the overlooked trends since 9/11 is the massive expansion of foreign students from the Middle East. As we’ve noted before, the creation of the Saudi King Abdullah Scholarship program a decade ago has resulted in a ten-fold increase in visas from Saudi Arabia. At 60,000 per year, the program is still growing and can expand infinitely because there are no caps on F-1 visas.
The Institute of International Education recently published its data on student visas for the academic year of 2014/2015. Here are some highlights:
974,926 foreign students were admitted for this past academic year, almost double the overall level before 9/11.
After China, India, and South Korea, the leading country of origin is Saudi Arabia with 59,945 student visas. In addition, we took in 10,724 from Turkey, 11, 338 from Iran, and 9,034 from Kuwait.
Using the 44 predominantly Muslim countries we identified in our piece on green cards from Muslim countries, I counted 156,781 student visas from those same predominantly Muslim countries. This means that Muslims likely account for 16% of the foreign students, and that doesn’t include India. Roughly 10% of the Indian population is Muslim and we bring in a whopping 138,000 students from there.
Is there any wonder why U.S. college campuses are replicas of some European countries in terms of the anti-Jewish activity and pro-Palestinian activism?
In many respects, the growing silent threat of foreign students from the Middle East is an even greater threat than the legal permanent residents (LPRs). These are predominantly young male students who are coming straight from the Middle East and, unlike LPRs, have no plans to establish a family or even attempt to share in the future of this country (to the extent most legal permanent residents ever viably achieve assimilation). We are literally recruiting from the subsection of the world that is most prone to subscribing to strict Sharia and Islamic supremacism, from those that have the zeal and energy to act on callings from ISIS and other terror groups.
As is the case with any other sphere of immigration, there are likely plenty of students who come here to learn and be productive. But there are clearly many others who bring with them the subversive and often anti-Semitic culture they have been exposed to back home. Moreover, their constant migration back and forth to their countries of origin throughout their time in U.S. universities makes them prime recruiting targets of professional Jihadist organizations.
This is why Paul’s amendment was so important. His plan would have reinstated the National Security Exit-Entry Registration System (NSEERS), which was implemented after 9/11 to properly vet and track those who come here from risky countries on a student visa. Obama unilaterally cancelled that program in 2010. To the extent we continue to commit cultural suicide and radicalize our college campuses with so many Middle Eastern students, it is certifiable not to properly monitor them.
It is simply unacceptable for a presidential candidate to have opposed such an effort. Rubio has some explaining to do. And so do all politicians who blithely ignore our suicidal immigration policies. (For more from the author of “The Other Gaping Security Hole: Student Visas From the Middle East” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2015-11-16 21:03:422016-04-11 10:56:04The Other Gaping Security Hole: Student Visas From the Middle East
Republicans in Congress know what they have to do. If they fail to convene this week and immediately work towards ending the Islamic refugee program, it’s safe to say they should all resign from office.
At its core, the predominant job of the federal government is to protect the citizenry from invasion. That is the essence of the social compact and why we agreed to form a constitutional federal union in the first place. While our vast oceans have protected us from conventional invasions, the corrosive and self-immolating values of political correctness have allowed endless reams of radical Islamic immigrants to penetrate those defenses. If Congress fails to act to immediately stop Obama’s plan to bring in tens of thousands of additional Islamic refugees from Syria and Somalia, especially after everything that has occurred in Europe, it is not outlandish to ask what is the purpose of even having a federal government.
There are two important themes we’ve been highlighting here at Conservative Review—themes that were punctuated by the Paris attacks. First, the importation of Middle Eastern refugees is sheer insanity. Second, there is an existential threat from a sizable share of the existing Muslim population in western countries. It has now been confirmed that one of the attackers was a “Syrian refugee” who came to France last month via Greece, while at least one attacker was a native French national. Several other French nationals were arrested in Belgium in connection to the attack.
How many more people have to die in order for our political class to get serious about real immigration reform?
Republicans like Senators Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) are already trying to distract from the central point and are making this about foreign policy instead of immigration. But before we discuss our involvement in the Civil War in Syria, how can these open border Republicans sit idly as the first of the Islamic refugees are brought to the shores of New Orleans?
It’s time Republicans get with the program and understand: ‘It’s immigration, stupid.’
At a minimum, conservatives must encourage GOP congressional leaders to do the following six things:
Immediately pass Rep. Brian Babin’s (R-TX) bill halting the refugee program.
Defund any appropriations for resettling Syrian or Somali refugees in this country. There is an upcoming budget deadline in December and it’s time Republicans use it. It’s bad enough they funded Planned Parenthood, which is a threat to the unborn; can they at least protect the living from Jihad?
Pass legislation vesting county governments with the veto power over refugee resettlement in their jurisdictions.
End student visas from countries that represent a security risk.
Deal with the existing homeland threat by passing Ted Cruz’s Expatriate Terrorist Act, which would revoke the citizenship of those who fight for foreign terrorist organizations, such as ISIS. We must also enforce and strengthen existing law under section 237 (a)(4) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act, which directs the executive branch to deport non-citizens who encourage support for terrorism. Also, pass Cruz’s bill designating the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization.
Make the broader immigration issue the #1 priority for the upcoming legislative agenda. GOP presidential candidates must also make this the defining issue of their campaigns.
As I noted when Paul Ryan was elected Speaker, merely abstaining from making the problem worse is not enough. The status quo means that Obama succeeds in transforming America and endangering the citizenry with a number of refugees who subscribe to Sharia’s creed of Islamic supremacism. We need House leadership to actively stop Obama’s immigration agenda.
It’s also not enough to merely suggest that we must better screen or vet these refugees for ties to ISIS. The Islamic State is not the source of the problem; it is a symptom of the broader problem of Islamic supremacism. Most of the recent homegrown terror attacks were not perpetrated by those with direct ties to ISIS or any official terror group, but by those who believe in Islamic supremacism.
Under existing law, in order to qualify for refugee status in the United States an applicant must demonstrate a “credible fear” of persecution in their home country. Isn’t it time our politicians heed the cries of “credible fear” from Americans under threat of terrorism in our own country? (For more from the author of “Paris Jihad: It’s Immigration, Stupid” please click HERE)
A Democratic candidate for the Minnesota House ended his campaign Sunday, hours after he tweeted that the Islamic State group “isn’t necessarily evil” and its members were doing what they thought was best for their community.
Dan Kimmel, 63, announced the end of his bid for office on his campaign website and Twitter account. He said Saturday evening’s tweet was in response to a statement made during a candidate debate, not in response to Friday’s violent attacks in Paris that left more than 120 people dead and more than 350 wounded . . .
Kimmel, of Burnsville, sent a tweet Saturday that said: “ISIS isn’t necessarily evil. It is made up of people doing what they think is best for their community. Violence is not the answer, though.” He was criticized on social media, and sent out another tweet later that said: “I deplore the evil acts of ISIS. I do not defend their acts.” (Read more from “Democrat Ends Campaign After Sympathetic ISIS Tweet” HERE)
Sen. Ted Cruz stood outside the New Hampshire state capitol Thursday morning, moments after filing papers to qualify for next year’s first-in-the-nation presidential primary. Coatless against a cold drizzle, he delivered a fiery call to arms to the enthusiastic supporters gathered around him and beyond.
“We’re seeing conservatives in New Hampshire and nationally unite,” he said. “We’re seeing the liberty movement coming together… Let me tell you, what is happening on these steps in New Hampshire scares the living daylights out of Washington.”
It was an exhortation by a politician on the rise in the competition for the Republican nomination. Two outsiders with no political experience, Donald Trump and Ben Carson, continue to lead the GOP field. But in the year of the outsider, the freshman senator from Texas who has made his mark defying the political elites believes that, ultimately, he can be the beneficiary of the virulent anti-Washington mood that has shaped this pre-election year.
And as unlikely as his path might have seemed a few months ago, Cruz’s rise in the polls and his formidable war chest represent an additional threat to the establishment that is not going unnoticed.
During a lengthy interview as he returned to his hotel after a long day of campaigning, Cruz offered a detailed explanation of what he views as his path forward — and why he thinks he’ll win. But it is a path strewn with obstacles, opponents and question marks. (Read more from “Ted Cruz Explains His Challenging Path to the GOP Nomination” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2015-11-16 21:00:212016-04-11 10:56:06Ted Cruz Explains His Challenging Path to the GOP Nomination
On a September day in 2014, Leandro Banks saw his money disappear in an instant.
Banks, an independent contractor, left the bank with $1,858 in his pocket. The money came from his paycheck of nearly $5,000, Banks says.
Some of it he deposited, some he shared with an employee, and the rest—the $1,858—he says he intended to keep at home.
But in between the bank and his house, Banks stopped on the street to talk with some friends. Police said they saw him make a “transaction” by passing marijuana to another man in exchange for cash.
In an interview with The Daily Signal more than a year later, Banks, 46, says he simply was exchanging a handshake.
When officers with the Philadelphia Police Department approached Banks, though, he took off running.
They caught him three blocks away and said they found two ounces of marijuana and nearly $2,000 in a pocket of his blue shorts.
The officers seized the cash under Pennsylvania’s civil asset forfeiture laws, believing that it was connected to the marijuana. Banks contended that the money came from his paycheck.
“I was upset,” Banks recalls. “Even though it was a year ago, that’s my money. I worked hard for that. I said, ‘I got to fight it.’”
So Banks began his foray into Philadelphia’s civil asset forfeiture machine, beginning in a small, rectangular room in City Hall called Courtroom 478.
There, the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office attempted to settle with Banks, first offering him $1,500 and then lowering its bid to $500. The contractor says he declined.
Banks told the city he would be happy to go to court to show the cash came from honest work. And he had the pay stub to prove it.
Inside Courtroom 478
Civil asset forfeiture is a tool that gives law enforcement the power to seize property and money suspected of being related to a crime. Originally, it was a way for police to target drug trafficking and money laundering.
Law enforcement officials in Philadelphia contend today that asset forfeiture is vital for eliminating the profit incentive for those in the drug trade.
Over the past few years, though, law enforcement agencies across the nation have faced growing criticism for what is seen as their abuse of forfeiture. Philadelphia, in particular, is the target of substantial backlash.
For citizens such as Banks whose cash, houses, or motor vehicles are seized by police in Philadelphia, the journey to get their property back begins in Courtroom 478, located halfway down a long hallway.
On a Thursday morning in July, the dimly lit hallway is nearly empty. A man passes by, his footsteps echoing, and he ducks into another courtroom further along.
Every so often, one of the city’s assistant district attorneys walks through the doorway of Courtroom 478 and into the hall, followed by a confused-looking property owner gripping paperwork.
The prosecutors sometimes converse with the property owners in hushed tones, discussing the details of proposed settlements or instructing them on what additional forms they need to fill out.
Inside the courtroom, wooden chairs are arranged in rows along the back wall. On this day, half the seats are filled. The occupants sit with their arms tightly crossed against their chests.
Courtroom 478 typically is busy on Wednesdays, when people whose vehicles were seized are summoned to appear.
Fridays, by contrast, are much slower. That’s when people who had less than $50 seized by law enforcement get their day in Courtroom 478.
For many of those property owners, fighting for the return of under $50 isn’t worth the hassle of spending a morning—and possibly several more—in Courtroom 478. On a Friday in July, only one person is listed on the docket, and that person doesn’t show up.
Darpana Sheth, a lawyer with the Institute for Justice who is leading a class action lawsuit against Philadelphia, says her group has seen forfeiture petitions for as little as $7 or $9. Going to Courtroom 478 to fight for such a low amount may seem futile, she says, but it’s those small sums that boost the city’s forfeiture revenue.
“If that’s what’s been taken from you, it’s a rational, economic decision that it’s not worth your time to go fight over that,” Sheth says in an interview with The Daily Signal. “But it’s important to know that it’s through this kind of accumulation of small-dollar amounts that most of Philadelphia’s slush fund of forfeiture revenue has been accumulated.”
Of the nearly $6 million—an average—forfeited annually by action of the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office from 2002 to 2012, $4.5 million came from cash seizures, according to an analysis conducted by the Institute for Justice.
The American Civil Liberties Union found in its own investigation that half of cash forfeitures in Philadelphia between 2011 and 2013 involved amounts of less than $192. Just 10 percent were more than $1,000. The ACLU examined a random sample of 351 cash forfeitures over that three-year span.
In the weeks following The Daily Signal’s visit, the district attorney’s Public Nuisance Task Force—which oversees the process—decided to prohibit forfeitures of less than $50. Also ended were forfeitures tied to low-level misdemeanors.
Waiting to Meet a Prosecutor
For those summoned to Courtroom 478 on this Thursday, waiting to meet with an assistant district attorney is an hours-long affair.
The prosecutors often meet directly with property owners and help guide them through the process. Such involvement has earned the criticism of Sheth and other forfeiture opponents, who argue that the lack of a neutral party violates due process.
David Earley had $150 in cash and three cell phones seized in June, when police arrested him for possession of cocaine, he tells The Daily Signal. The case was dropped and the charges dismissed.
Earley, 36, says he doesn’t care about the cash—it’s one of the cell phones he wanted back. He waited for nearly two hours to learn if it would be returned. (It was.)
Another property owner, a woman named Rochelle, says Officer Jeffrey Walker seized $7,000 from her in 2012. The next year, the narcotics officer was arrested and charged with planting drugs in and robbing a suspect’s house. In July, Walker was convicted and sentenced to three and a half years behind bars.
On this Thursday in July, Rochelle appears with hopes her money will be returned, but she learns that it will be another 10 to 12 weeks before she sees the cash—another 10 to 12 weeks in what has been a three-year battle with the city.
Back in Courtroom 478, a broken clock leans up against the wall.
Guilty Until Proven Innocent
There are 16 seats on the left side of Courtroom 478, seats meant to hold a jury. But they’re empty.
A man sits at the front of the rectangular room. In any other courtroom, a judge would sit there. In Courtroom 478, though, the man isn’t a judge. He is a scheduler who tells property owners when they need to appear next.
Residents such as Earley and Banks, whose cash or other property was seized by the Philadelphia Police Department, receive a notice of forfeiture. They are required to appear here to prove they were unaware of any illegal activity involving their property.
This notion—of being guilty before proven innocent—is one of the many points of contention for critics of the city’s forfeiture system.
Sheth says it denies the presumption of innocence.
“The property owner bears the burden to affirmatively prove that they didn’t know about the illegal activity or they didn’t consent to it,” Sheth tells The Daily Signal, adding:
That’s where you get the reversal of the presumption of innocence. In these civil forfeiture cases, the property owner has to come forward and affirmatively prove a negative, that they didn’t know about the illegal activity, which is a very hard thing to do. The presumption of innocence is being turned on its head.
Sheth and the Institute for Justice have homed in on specific aspects of the system that threaten property rights, including the profit incentive created by forfeiture.
‘Direct Financial Incentive’
Philadelphia took in $64 million in forfeiture proceeds from 2002 to 2012, according to the Institute for Justice. Approximately $25 million of it went to paying law enforcement salaries, including those of lawyers working for the city in Courtroom 478.
A report from the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Office found that Philadelphia law enforcement seized $3.4 million from 2013 to 2014 through civil forfeiture.
The ACLU reported that the district attorney’s office received nearly $2.2 million from forfeiture proceeds in 2012, which equals 7.3 percent of the agency’s budget.
“Those prosecutors have a direct financial incentive in the outcome of that proceeding. If property is eventually forfeited, that goes directly to the district attorney’s office, which uses it to pay salaries, including the salaries of these prosecutors,” Sheth says. “They have a direct financial interest that is very problematic.”
Prosecutors for the city don’t see it that way.
In an interview with The Daily Signal, Andrew Jenemann, chief of the district attorney’s Public Nuisance Task Force, says forfeiture proceeds are split between the police force and the district attorney’s office. The agencies use the money for different purposes, Jenemann says, and his task force has no say in it.
The money represents a small percentage of the budget, he says:
Some of the criticism is that we’re taking random people’s money, and that can’t be further from the truth. I don’t know if you’ve ever had the experience of living next door to a drug house or next door to a place that’s selling drugs. Ultimately, what this is all about it disrupting the drug trade and taking away instruments of crime that [criminals] use to further it.
Return Engagements
But the profit incentive isn’t the only reason opponents say the process is unconstitutional.
Property owners aren’t granted a right to counsel and often are asked to fill out complex forms filled with legal jargon.
Additionally, after appearing in Courtroom 478 for the first time, many property owners are required to return four, five, or even six times before learning whether their cash, vehicles, or houses are forfeited for good or will be returned.
Earley was lucky; he appeared in Courtroom 478 just once. Rochelle, who didn’t wish to share her last name, was there three times. Banks appeared six times, records show.
Failing to appear even once leads to automatic forfeiture of cash and automobiles, critics complain.
In January 2014, Philadelphia police seized $580 and a Buick LeSabre from Nassir Geiger, a lifelong city resident. Geiger, who joined the Institute for Justice’s class action lawsuit, appeared in Courtroom 478 several times to fight for his car and money.
Geiger, a sanitation worker employed by the city, wasn’t aware that the district attorney’s office had filed separate forfeiture petitions for his car and about $465 in cash.
According to court documents, Geiger never received a hearing notice about his cash and failed to appear in Courtroom 478 as scheduled on March 11, 2014, and June 16, 2014.
Because he didn’t show, his money was forfeited.
‘Bad Information’
Contrary to their critics, prosecutors disagree that missing a hearing leads to automatic forfeiture.
Jenemann, an assistant district attorney, says prosecutors do research before acting to forfeit real property—a house, business or warehouse—if a person fails to appear. He says they comb real estate tax records and other public documents, and look for addresses listed on a property’s water bills.
If a property owner cooperates and participates in the process, and then fails to appear in Courtroom 478, Jenemann says, prosecutors aren’t afraid to reopen cases involving property that had been defaulted.
Also, if property is forfeited after the owner fails to appear, Jenemann stresses, he or she can request that the court reopen a case by filing a motion to vacate the previous forfeiture. In some cases, the Pennsylvania courts reopen forfeiture cases involving houses, cars, and money.
“There’s a certain amount of bad information that’s been put out there,” Jenemann says. “There’s a certain amount of unfairness in the way [forfeiture] has been portrayed. We’re always trying to improve the process. You want to get from what it is to where it should be.”
Jenemann notes that the number of times claimants have to appear in forfeiture court is based largely on the defendant and whether he or she has an open criminal case.
Under Philadelphia’s court rules, he says, status hearings must be conducted every few months until a criminal case is closed. That can keep property owners such as Banks coming back to Courtroom 478 five or six times.
The drawn out nature of forfeiture cases, criticized by opponents of Philadelphia’s practice, is one aspect of the program Jenemann has changed.
“We are responding to the criticism by evaluating past policies and past procedures, and where we find them to need updating or changes, we’re making updates or changes,” he says. “But I don’t think the criticism has been fair.”
‘Every Last Penny’
Banks’ case underscores the concerns of those fighting the system. The contractor represents thousands of property owners whose cash, cars, or residences were seized even though the property wasn’t tied conclusively to illegal activity.
Banks was found guilty of possession of marijuana with intent to manufacture or deliver, according to filings with the Municipal Court of Philadelphia County. His pay stub, however, showed that the $1,858 seized by police wasn’t tied to the drugs.
He was sentenced to 18 months’ probation.
Banks and the district attorney’s office reached a settlement in August, court documents show. As a result, Banks says, he received “every last penny back.” He also was asked to sign a waiver saying he wouldn’t sue the city.
Such waiver requests aren’t uncommon, as evident in the 2012 case of George Reby, who had $22,000 in cash seized in Tennessee. Reby, who got his money back, was asked to sign a waiver saying he wouldn’t sue the state.
In the interview with The Daily Signal, Banks says he didn’t understand why police went after him and not the man who they believed was selling marijuana, especially when law enforcement is focused on taking drugs off the streets.
And although Banks was able to prove that his money wasn’t tied to illegal activity, effectively beating Philadelphia’s forfeiture system, he laments that others won’t find it that simple.
“For someone who doesn’t have a pay stub, it wouldn’t be so easy,” Banks says, adding of his money: “I needed that change.” (For more from the author of “The Unconstitutional Civil Forfeiture Racket: Guilty Until Proven Innocent (and Other Scams)” please click HERE)
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected an anti-abortion group’s bid to force the federal government to reveal more information about a $1 million grant it made in 2011 to women’s health provider Planned Parenthood in New Hampshire.
The nine justices rejected an appeal filed by New Hampshire Right to Life, a group that sued the federal government under freedom of information law to find out about the arrangement.
The Supreme Court’s action leaves in place a February ruling by the Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in favor of the government.
The government already has revealed some details about the grant, but New Hampshire Right to Life sought more, including a Planned Parenthood internal document that explains how the group operates its clinics.
Planned Parenthood, which provides abortions as well as health services for women, has been under fire for months by Republican lawmakers and anti-abortion activists over a series of videos produced by an anti-abortion group that purport to show that it improperly sells fetal tissue to researchers for profit. (Read more from “U.S. Top Court Rejects Anti-Abortion Group’s Planned Parenthood Case’ HERE)
