“Targets Down“ (B&H Publishing), my second novel in the Matt Hogan series is now available. Publisher’s Weekly called my debut novel, “Enemies Among Us,” ”a page-turning roller coaster that feels like Jack Bauer’s 24 without sailing over the top.” Actor/producer Jack Scalia read an advance copy of TARGETS DOWN and liked it so much he optioned it. Mark Roemmich of Noble House Entertainment Pictures is writing the screenplay.

Much of my career was spent undercover so it makes sense Matt Hogan, my alter-ego, would be an undercover FBI agent…only younger, better looking, and with more hair than I have. Although fiction, I want to give the reader a realistic look at the FBI and what undercover work really entails. Hollywood seldom gets it right and too often our perception is only what we see on the big screen. 

As in many undercover assignments, where you begin is not where you finish. As I’ve discussed at Big Peace, I was undercover for three years in Operation Smoking Dragon. It began with Chinese manufactured counterfeit cigarettes but lead to nearly pure crystal meth, ecstasy, the North Korean Super Note, a $60 million surface-to-air missile deal, even former Russian intelligence agents selling me stolen cars. In TARGETS DOWN, Matt finds twists and turns as he seeks to find who killed two people and critically wounded an FBI agent’s wife.

Here’s chapter one, I hope you enjoy it…

TARGETS DOWN: CHAPTER ONE 

The powerful hand gripped the silenced Russian-made weapon and the tattooed arm straightened. As the teenager talked to the killer’s two associates in the darkened parking lot, she had no idea she was about to be erased by the threat behind her. It was all so impersonal, but career criminals operated on a different plain. Morality was never an issue; expediency was. The Ukrainian girl was a liability and thus expendable.

The ever-constant traffic on Ventura Boulevard masked the sounds of the two muted gunshots fired in rapid succession. From just a few feet away either shot to the back of the head was fatal. Before anyone exited the rear door to the Russian Veil, the three men threw the limp body into the bed of the pick-up truck and were gone: another anonymous victim of Los Angeles street justice, a judicial system lacking due process or fairness. Even a quest for freedom was a capital offense.

Matt Hogan stood in front of the mirror admiring his greased biker-hair look. His rugged battle-scarred features were in sharp contrast to the metrosexuals parading up and down the Sunset Strip on any Saturday evening. The undercover agent then sprayed a 70 percent solution of alcohol on the left side of his powerful neck. He carefully placed the Tinsley transfer, blotted the paper, waited a few seconds, and just as carefully removed the transfer. Satisfied with his work, he finished with a dash of baby powder to aid in drying the large prison-like tattoo. A movie studio German “SS” now complemented the stubble. But even clean shaven, Matt could be a menacing figure, a no-holds barred, man’s man.

If it’s true, the hotter the fire the stronger the steel, then Hogan was as strong as they came. A member of the FBI’s small cadre of undercover agents, he successfully played the role of contract killer, drug dealer, and when cleaned up, a sophisticated white collar criminal. A psychologist described him as a “synthesist,” a person who could void himself of his own personality and take on the characteristics, mindset, and mannerisms of whatever the part required. Matt was good, maybe too good. Sometimes even he questioned who he was.

Working undercover meant more than a fake driver’s license and a fictitious name. It was living life as a liar for hours, days, even months at a time. It meant becoming one of them without becoming one of them. Distance offered detachment but when you went undercover it became personal. It was getting close to people whom you will ultimately betray and probing the darkest side of humanity, including your own. Unlike Hollywood, there were no retakes—a botched line, a missed mark, a mistake—could mean instant death. Matt Hogan walked in the flames many times; he experienced the fire.

As he began writing the letters H-A-T-E on the fingers of his right hand, Steve Barnett walked into the Joint Terrorism Task Force locker room.

“Well, if it isn’t the Mary Kay of the FBI,” said Steve. “You enjoy putting on make-up way too much. I hope you aren’t switching sides on me.”

“Don’t ask. Don’t tell,” said Matt concentrating on his artwork.

“Why don’t you just pierce your ear and grow a ponytail, like every other undercover agent I know?”

“Caitlin won’t let me. She’s got a pretty strict dress code around the house. In fact, these biker undercover assignments keep me sleeping on the couch until I take a shower.”

“I guess that’s why she’s been spending so many nights with me at my place.”

“In your dreams big guy, I know for a fact she doesn’t date the follicly challenged with a bad weave.”

Steve pulled out a comb and began to rake his sparse locks styled in a weak comb-over. “That’s how much you know. I’m a Hair Club for Men honor graduate and she loves to run her fingers through these amber waves.”

Matt didn’t even look up, still writing on his fingers. “I’m surprised you’re awake. Isn’t this way past your bedtime?”

Steve looked in the mirror, moving his face even closer, carefully examining his skin, searching for tell-tale signs of aging, “These late nights are causing all kinds of wrinkles.”

“I’m not sure eight hours of sleep or Mary Kay will help,” said Matt without cracking a smile.

“What about Botox?”

“Yeah, that might fill in a few of those deep crevices around the eyes but you still don’t have a shot with any skirt rated higher than a three or four.”

“You’re probably right. I keep hoping my near perfect shooting scores at the Leisure World pistol range will attract some blue-hair with money, but I’m even striking out there.” Steve paused, turned serious, and then said almost in a whisper, “Dwayne said we’re ready to start the briefing, when you are.”

An FBI office is like a locker room with the requisite jock-snapping and sarcastic sniping. The thin-skinned need not apply. A sense of humor is almost a requirement, sometimes the sicker the better. Those on the outside would never understand or appreciate the need to talk or act the way grown men in law enforcement do. Those in the military understand. Those on the front lines fighting evil know the need. It brings a sense of relief from the tensions the real world throws at you everyday, the constant reminders of your mortality. It also brings a sense of camaraderie. You can’t count on judges, lawyers, law makers, or administrators. Like the combat soldier or Marine you can only count on the man next to you on the urban battlefield.

Matt blew on his fingers to accelerate the drying time of the ink from the tattoo make-up pen and followed Steve to the room at the end of the long hallway.

—–

Ed. Note: You can read Mark Tapson’s review of “Targets Down” here.

I’ve only been in “Hollywood” the past few years. My experience is limited to a couple of TV writing credits, serving as the technical advisor for two series, consulting on several projects, and pitching a spec pilot around town. I’ve found a little more success in having two books published: a recently released thriller and a true-crime autobiography of my undercover work in the FBI. But even with my limited experience, I realize what you read in a script is not necessarily what makes it to the big screen. All this to say, I have not seen “Unthinkable” starring Samuel L. Jackson, but I have read a late version of London-born and British-educated Peter Woodward’s script. 

 ——

I always hated it in high school English when the teacher wanted to know the poet’s intent for a particular verse. I never saw any deeper meaning than he wanted the words to rhyme, so I don’t pretend to question why this script was written or produced. The screenplay has a lot of action and will probably stimulate controversy on both sides of the aisle. It asks the question “to what length do we go to obtain information which will potentially save hundreds possibly thousands of lives?” 

Maybe as a caveat before reading any further I should tell you: my son is a Marine; I have no problem with the enhanced interrogation techniques as employed by the Bush administration; there is a lot I would do to save the lives of our servicemen and women who risk their lives daily because our nation asked; I have fired my service weapon in the heat of battle; and have absolutely no issue with defending myself or others who are in grave physical danger. 

There’s a maxim in the law: Bad cases make bad law. In other words many Supreme Court decisions were made as the result of egregious behavior where someone overstepped his bounds and now everyone is saddled with the overly-broad court-imposed restrictions. This movie certainly paints a worse case scenario for invoking both the law and the most extreme interrogation techniques. A Muslim terrorist threatens to detonate not one, not two, but three nuclear bombs in the United States, and a team of federal officials from the various alphabet agencies and the military, as well as some private contractors, are tasked with protecting America. 

In August, 2005 Hurricane Katrina devastated much of the Gulf Coast. It was one of the deadliest hurricanes in U.S. history. President Bush was criticized for his handling of the disaster, especially in Louisiana, even though the governor of any state has the initial responsibility for insuring that state’s security. As a result of the disaster, Congress in a short paragraph hidden within a much larger bill provided the president with expanded authority. 

“Unthinkable” is centered around that tiny paragraph in the John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007 specifically the provisions at Title X, subtitle H, Section 1076 which in summary: 

Revises federal provisions allowing the President to utilize the Armed Forces in connection with interference with federal and state law to allow the President to employ the Armed Forces and National Guard in federal service to restore public order in cases of natural disaster, epidemic or other public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or domestic violence. Requires the President to notify Congress within 14 days of the exercise of such authority. Authorizes the President, when exercising such authority, to direct the Secretary to provide supplies, services, and equipment to persons affected by the situation.  

The problem from a reality standpoint for the “Unthinkable” script is this section was repealed in 2008 so it’s no longer relevant but Hollywood would never let that stand in the way of a project. 

Like most Hollywood thrillers, it’s over-the-top but raises some interesting issues if you want to be more than entertained. 

I applaud Woodward for making the terrorist a Muslim who according to intelligence sources was paid by the Iranians to smuggle nuclear material out of Russia. The now rogue terrorist living in the United States is a naturalized U.S. citizen who has his citizenship revoked by the President. He allows himself to be captured after releasing a video threat to detonate three nuclear devices. 

Initially, the FBI is tasked to “bring them all in…all of them, talk to their families…every single contact you have in every single file.” Later in the screenplay we learn the FBI rounds up 120 residents and holds them in some facility where they are to be interrogated after being Mirandized…yeah right, that happened just about every other day during my twenty-six year career. (For those of you on both ends of the political spectrum, I’m being sarcastic). 

The Bureau goes to the home of Samuel L. Jackson and his family who are in some kind of Witness Protection Program. The powers–to-be inadvertently put him on a list of possible people of interest, thus the FBI’s misguided interest in him as part of this round-up of residents to be interrogated. During the confrontation, Jackson shoots an FBI agent. Just as the FBI commences its investigation, the military steps in, invoking the Defense Authorization Act of 2007 which, as I said, has been repealed. A bit confusing but it’s Hollywood and we need to get to the meat of the problem…since Jackson, a civilian contractor, is apparently the only one who can conduct this most important interrogation, how far do we let him go to save American lives? 

My guess is Eric Holder would read the terrorist his rights and hope the bad-boy cooperates after consultation with his court-appointed attorney who more than likely will tell his client to shut up until the government has a deal on the table. Others would cheer Jackson on and encourage him to go well beyond the tactics he employs in the script which can best be described as “brutal.” 

The question I have is why do so many in Hollywood insist on painting the United States in the darkest hue? The interrogation techniques Jackson uses are heinous, far outside those permissible under even the most liberal interpretation of the Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (EIT) policy of the Bush administration which like the provisions of the Defense Authorization Act of 2007 have been revoked. John Helgerson, the former CIA Inspector General, whose 2004 report on the use of EIT cites nothing even close to Jackson’s actions in the script. Yet Hollywood wants us to believe our military and law enforcement personnel would stand by and allow this brutality to happen. 

So we have a script based upon a law which has been revoked and a policy no longer in effect. Even when both were viable, nothing even close to what is to be portrayed on the big screen ever happened. I am certain there will be those who watch this and believe all this is business as usual for our military and law enforcement personnel and seek to have even further restrictions placed on our public servants. 

After four years on active duty in the Marine Corps, after twenty-six years as an FBI agent, after numerous discussions with my son and his men, after repeated conversations with high-ranking military and government officials, I still believe this to be the greatest nation in the world, defended by some of the most honorable men and women ever to serve. Maybe at least once or twice a year Hollywood would remember in a positive way those who risk so much for the far too many who have forgotten.

Today my point is the LAW. I touched on it briefly in the article but no one seems to be discussing the LAW. Many on the left and maybe even some on the right are applauding the decision by Attorney General Eric Holder to name a special prosecutor. I only have one question: What crimes were committed? Those supporting the decision to name a prosecutor say, “torture.” 

 The federal statute can be found in Title 18 chapter 113C of the Federal Criminal Code and Rules. Section 2340 defines torture. Section 2340A says:

Whoever outside the United States commits or attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years or both, and if death results to any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or life.

According to John Helgerson, who prepared the 2004 inspector general report for the CIA, the most egregious case was that of Abdul Wali, an Afghan suspected of rocket attacks on military bases. Wali died after four days in custody. A CIA contractor, David Passaro, was convicted in federal court of assault for the techniques he employed in June, 2003 during the interrogation. 

Federal career prosecutors have already reviewed the 2004 report and concur only one criminal case warranted prosecution. I can only assume there were no other situations warranting the death penalty. Every pundit seems more concerned with the water-boarding and “threats” to Abu Zubayda, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (KSM), and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, none of whom died from the interrogations. 

The Statue of Limitations for federal offenses is spelled out in Title 18 Section 3282:

Except as otherwise expressly provided by law, no person shall be prosecuted, tried, or punished for any offense, not capital, unless the indictment is found or the information is instituted within five years next after such offense shall have been committed. 

In other words, unless someone was killed all prosecutions must be brought within five years. Math was never my strongest subject but the report came out in 2004. Obviously the incidents occurred earlier and it’s now 2009. To prosecute anyone the offense must have taken place after August, 2004 otherwise the Statute of Limitations has run. KSM was captured on March 1, 2003; Abu Zubayda in March 2002; and Abd a-Rahim al-Nashiri in 2002. Even assuming some interrogator violated the law prior to that date, he can’t be prosecuted. So why the need for a “special prosecutor” to review what career federal prosecutors have already studied? 

Maybe I’m missing something but this sure looks like a political move designed to distract the masses, embarrass the prior administration, and destroy morale at the CIA.

Prove me wrong.

His latest novel “Extreme Measures” was released last fall but once again Flynn may end up just a little too real. I won’t give away the plot but Mitch Rapp finds himself in front of a Congressional committee explaining why he needed to employ “extreme measures” to protect this nation. Sound familiar? Attorney General Eric Holder named a federal prosecutor this week to examine the abuse of prisoners during interrogations by the CIA. I wonder if Mitch will be called as a witness. 

The administration has minimized the War on Terror calling it a “contingency operation” to prevent “man-made disasters.”  I guess I shouldn’t be too surprised it would choose to re-investigate a subject the President has publicly said he prefers not to explore and one that has already been reviewed by federal prosecutors. Even after Holder’s announcement, White House aides declared the President “wants to look forward, not backward” at the previous administration’s policies. Forgive me if I am skeptical. 

How can this latest action be anything but a political move to placate the left in Congress, the ACLU, and Amnesty International? 

In “The Last Undercover” I detail many of the cases in which I was the FBI undercover agent. All were federal cases and resulted in hundreds of convictions. I am well aware of Justice Department guidelines requiring a reasonable certainty of conviction before bringing an indictment…none of this TV crap when the prosecutor indicts on weak evidence hoping to get the bad guy to cooperate during a commercial break. 

So how does my experience impact my opinion of the administration’s decision?  First, John Helgerson, the former CIA inspector general, who wrote the report in 2004 which was released Monday said, “I think it would be very difficult to mount a successful prosecution in any of these cases.” Then there is the matter of the law. The Statue of Limitations for most federal crimes is five years. A criminal act requires mens rea, a “criminal intent” and prosecutions require evidence. Most of the cases in the 2004 report were among the many investigated by Alexandria, Virginia federal prosecutors in which no charges were brought against anyone in the CIA. Government attorneys who reviewed these incidents cited a lack of evidence, witnesses, and even victims. 

The report released on Monday cites as “abusive”… threatening the man charged with plotting the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, a Navy destroyer in which seventeen sailors were killed and thirty-nine injured. The “threat” was to bring in his mother thereby possibly inferring his female relatives might be sexually abused. At no time did the CIA interrogator bring in a female relative let alone physically abuse the man or his family. And if you think that was abusive how about staging mock executions in the room next door or worse yet blowing cigar and cigarette smoke into prisoners’ faces (doesn’t the President still smoke?). Various media outlets have referred to these tactics as “severe” even “brutal.” I must be missing something. 

In February, 2007 David Passaro, a CIA contractor, was convicted of assaulting Abdul Wali, an Afghan suspected of rocket attacks on military bases. Wali died in custody. The federal prosecutors did their jobs. John Helgerson said none of the remaining cases compared in severity to the Passaro matter. 

In response to Holder’s announcement this week, the CIA released internal reports calling the interrogation program “a crucial pillar of U.S. counter-terrorism efforts” and saying it “dramatically expanded our universe of knowledge on al-Qaeda’s plots.” 

Granted both are Republicans but former Vice President Cheney said the CIA efforts kept the nation safer and Rep. Peter King, the top Republican on the House Homeland Security Committee, called Holder’s decision “disgraceful.” 

Dennis Blair, the current director of national intelligence, said the interrogation techniques provided “high value information…a deeper understanding of the al-Qaeda organization that was attacking this country.” He admitted, “…the information gained from these techniques was valuable in some instances…” 

Michael Hayden, the former Director of the CIA said, “The use of these techniques against these terrorists made us safer. It really did work.” 

Even John Brennan, the President’s recently hand-picked selection to lead the administration’s interrogation policies, said in a 2007 interview regarding the Bush administration interrogation techniques, “Would the U.S. be handicapped if the CIA was not, in fact, able to carry out these types of detention and debriefing activities? I would say, yes.” 

I have no problem with the administration determining what techniques will be used while it is in the White House, but this decision looks like a pure political move to appease the left-wing of the party.  At the same time it has to have a chilling effect on those who are tasked with keeping us safe, fearing anything they do, even if sanctioned by the current administration might subject them to criminal liability down the road. Although most of my career was spent working criminal cases, I did interact with the CIA on several occasions. Those case officers with whom I dealt were intelligent, hardworking, and patriotic. As former Vice President Cheney said they “deserve our thanks.”   

Mitch Rapp, thanks. If you do exist and need me, give me a call. Let me know what you want done. I’ve got your six. We owe you a lot!

Alas however, it was not meant to be. A major stumbling block was a personality test the Agency gave all Jack Bauer wannabes. Scoring applicants on a 0-10 scale…a zero meaning you could live on a deserted island for years, a ten meaning you had to be constantly surrounded by people…I scored a ZERO. Yep, a zero. The psychologist said in all the years of administering the test he had never seen “a zero personality.” Now, I admit I somewhat skewed my answers. I figured they were looking for paid assassins they could drop behind enemy lines and remain secreted for weeks. Wrong! The agency was looking for “threes” and “fours.” On occasion my wife still reminds me I have been rated a zero personality by the federal government. I actually think I’m up to a .5, maybe even a one, but needless to say I’m not really comfortable in public settings making small talk… unless I’m undercover (but then I’m a completely different persona and my criminal alter ego takes over).

It’s not easy going through life with a zero personality, but I’ve recently learned of some ice-breaker questions certain to make me a hit at the next party:

What is your name, address, and date of birth?

What is your race?

Are you Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin?

Where were you born?

What is your ancestry or ethnic origin?

How many cars do you have at your house?

Do you have a flush toilet?

Do you have a sink with a faucet?

How much is your rent/mortgage?

Do you have a second mortgage? How much is it?

Are you covered by a health insurance plan? Which type?

Do you have serious difficulty hearing? Seeing? Concentrating, remembering, or making decisions?

Do you have difficulty dressing or bathing?

How many times have you been married?

When did you last get married?

Where did you work last? What’s the address?

What time do you leave home to go to work?

What is your income?

What is your retirement/pension?

Do you have a VA disability rating?

What’s the most important thing you do at work?

Do you think these questions are too personal or even stupid? Apparently the federal government doesn’t… and if you don’t answer them you can be fined $100-$5,000. All of these questions and more are on the American Community Survey. To my knowledge I’ve never been part of a census survey. I thought they just knocked on your door and asked how many people live at your house. Maybe the surveys have always been this detailed but as we slide further and further into the federal government running every aspect of our lives, this intrusion concerns me. I can see no reason why the feds need to know how many times I’ve been married, my health care provider, or whether I can or can’t concentrate. I will admit to some hearing loss that allows me to tune out my wife and my wife often questions the way I dress but is that the fed’s business? According to the FAQ on the website, the government needs to know all these answers for their government programs. Maybe the reason I’m balking at answering is because we seem to have too many programs as it is…. but they don’t ask my opinion on that issue in the survey.

The investigation included charges of conspiring to sell surface-to-air missiles, the sale of counterfeit currency, clothing, and cigarettes. It also included counterfeit postage stamps…yep, the Chinese were counterfeiting our 37 cent postage stamp (I’m sure now they are doing the Forever Stamp but all my connections are in federal prison so I guess I’ll have to pay for them like everyone else). I obtained hundreds of thousands of the counterfeit flag stamps packaged 100 to a roll. One postal inspector told me it was one of their largest seizures ever. I say all that because last week I had an issue with the post office and my “celebrity” status apparently carried no weight. 

I will be the first to admit I think the post office does a darn good job. I’m amazed most of the mail I send gets to its intended destination, but last week the USPS failed me. 

My wife and I were back in the Midwest on a family emergency. On Wednesday while bouncing between three states I realized I left my car keys in one state, was driving in a borrowed car to a second state, and the next day would be in a third state. I was returning to Southern California on Friday and needed the keys to drive home from the airport. Our daughter went to the post office and explained the situation. The keys had to be overnighted. They had to arrive on Thursday since the flight was leaving Friday. The post office employee was very understanding, provided her a price, took delivery of the package containing the keys to my pick-up, affixed the postage, and promised they would arrive by noon the next day. All was right with the world. 

When my wife and I arrived to the third state at five o’clock on Thursday no package awaited me. I called my daughter who provided a tracking number. We accessed the automated system and learned the post office attempted to deliver the package at 10:30 a.m. but no one was home to accept delivery. My father-in-law balked and said he had been home the entire day. Since he is a retired minister I accepted his word. We contacted the local post office and learned the package was still in state number one. The original postal employee quoted the wrong price to my daughter and affixed the incorrect amount of postage, therefore they would not deliver the package. The deliveryman went to my daughter’s house at 10:30 to get the additional postage but she wasn’t home so the package sat at the main post office in state number one, far from where I needed it to be. 

I refrained from using language I learned in the Marine Corps but questioned why they delivered first class letters with postage due but would not deliver overnight mail when it “absolutely had to be there.” The explanation was…it’s against policy. So the keys remained in state number one, that post office was closed, and my daughter could not pick up the keys until the next day, Thursday. Of course the post office couldn’t mail the package Thursday night because there was still postage due even though I agreed to pay the postage at this end. The next day when my daughter went to the main post office to retrieve the keys she sought a well-deserved refund BUT no. She needed to return to the post office where she mailed the package which was never sent. Now granted “rules is rules” but any Costco or Target will take back anything they sell at any store, seems like the main post office could at least give a refund. 

During this family emergency I also listened to people complain about the long lines at the unemployment office and the fact the FBI didn’t respond to their complaints in a timely fashion. I don’t doubt their heartfelt concerns but I did remind them the same people running the post office, working at the unemployment office, and answering phones at the FBI would be the same people deciding their medical treatment if the Democrats get their way. 

I’m sure my story fell on deaf ears but I’m checking with Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and his edition of Turbo Tax and maybe now I can deduct the entire cost of the trip as a business expense since Big Hollywood posted my story,

When I first met Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) in February of this year (full disclosure: we have the same publisher, Fidelis Books) I heard him say something that resonated…”We’ve been duped into believing government alone can solve our country’s problems. I believe often the government is the problem. America’s greatness is found in its people and its values not in its government…with every round of new regulation and increased spending our country slides further away from liberty and closer to socialism. ” He had my attention. 

Apparently I wasn’t the only one recognizing his efforts to put his beliefs into action. The National Journal named him the Senate’s most conservative member and the National Taxpayer Union ranked him the number one senator for responsible tax and spending policies. 

His book “Saving Freedom” was released July 4th. It is his account of the socialist shift Congress is taking to change the very nature of our country. “Saving Freedom” is a primer for understanding the history of our freedoms and could not be more timely. Obviously, the book wasn’t written overnight. He told me he watched this slide for years but knew the new administration would support an even greater incursion at an exaggerated pace. With the government now controlling parts of the auto industry, the financial industry, insurance, and health care it has been a steep slide in a few short months. He acknowledges socialism begins with good intentions but becomes a government by force taking from some to give to others with the unintended consequences of destroying individual responsibility and creating an even greater dependency on the government. 

The book provides interesting insights into the world of politics and the pressures politicians face. One of several examples he provides is the uphill battle he has had with some veterans’ groups. Even though “serving veterans has been a top priority” he has been given an “F” by one national group because he voted against a veterans’ bill. The reasoning for his vote was sound but fodder for the special interests. (As a veteran, with a son in the Marines, I am quick to side with veterans’ groups but must now admit the Senator’s book opened my eyes. Maybe I need to dig deeper before I react.)

The Veterans Administration wanted to “downsize an under-utilized veterans’ hospital in Los Angeles.” By selling off several acres the VA estimated they could add $5 billion (with a “b”) to the veterans’ budget. “But Hollywood friends of the two California Senators wanted to keep the area as a park, so the bill included an ‘earmark’ to prohibit the VA from selling the property.” The money from the sale would have gone to veteran’s health-care. Senator DeMint tried to remove the “earmark” but his amendment failed so he voted against the bill. As a result he was targeted by certain veterans’ groups and now assumes he will spend money at his re-election combating ads attacking him for being against military veterans. 

But the book doesn’t whine about our nation’s problems. He provides an action plan for the nation and the individual to reclaim our freedoms. As Fox News says, “We report, you decide.” I would encourage everyone to take a look. “Saving Freedom” provides knowledge and some practical ways of doing and serving. Become informed and get involved. It is our country but it may not be the country we think we know if we don’t act soon.

I’ll make this brief because I know you are busy. 

I wanted to remind you of the oath you first took in 1987 and reaffirm at the start of each new Congress. It reads:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

Maybe I am missing something but I read nothing about political parties, putting your interests above the nation’s, or putting your party’s interests above the nation.

You now admit to attending the briefing where waterboarding was discussed but was told the CIA was only considering the use of the technique. Even assuming that to be true, you never objected to the “future use.” You said nothing, not a single word. Your most recent explanation for failing to speak up is, “No letter or anything else was going to stop them from doing what they were going to do. My job was to change the majority in Congress and to fight to have a new president.” 

No, that is not your job. The oath you took clearly defines your job. 

If you believed laws were being broken it was your duty as a sworn representative and a citizen to speak up. The Federal Criminal Code at 18 Section 4 applies to everyone and defines “Misprision of Felony” as “whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.” 

If you thought a crime was being committed it was your duty to report it. If, as I suspect, you had no issues with the Enhanced Interrogation Techniques as discussed in the briefings then I applaud you for putting the nation’s safety as a priority. That was your duty and you honored it. 

Our servicemen and women have taken the same oath to “protect and defend.” As Memorial Day approaches let us remember the many who have given their lives for this nation regardless of the political party in power. The Marine Corps has three core values: honor, courage, and commitment. A Marine is expected to live all three. Congress should adopt the same core values. At this point I wish you would pick just one. 

Sincerely,
Bob Hamer

In the first few meetings I successfully convinced my targets I was “bad.” Thus began a three-year undercover assignment concluding with dozens of arrests for crimes involving surface-to-air missiles, counterfeit U.S. currency, fake Viagra, phony blue jeans, ecstasy, crystal meth, and an assortment of other contraband. But it all began with counterfeit cigarettes manufactured overseas. The bad guys were smuggling the illegal “name-brand” cigarettes into the United States. I guess the politically correct term would be “undocumented cigarettes,” but their activities avoided all kinds of federal and state taxes. Not only were the cigarettes fake but so were the tax stamps on each pack…made to resemble the stamps for whatever state where the fakes were to be sold. Their products were good. The packaging looked authentic and the tax stamps appeared real. 

I’m not a big fan of statistics and studies, but I’ve read where China produces as many as 200 billion counterfeit cigarettes a year, and their neighbor, North Korea, manufactures more than 40 billion a year. I’m not sure of the actual numbers, but I do know I saw counterfeit cigarettes the bad guys claimed were made in both countries. 

The FBI’s investigative interest included the tax avoidance issue, but another primary motivation was that many of these cigarettes found their way into convenience stores whose owners supported “man-created disasters.” (For those of you who have been on vacation, we used to call it “terrorism.”) 

The whole issue of cigarette taxes has come up again with the feds and various states trying to tax their way out of an economic downturn. As anyone who has read my postings can attest, I’m not the brightest bulb on the tree. I just bring my street experiences to the table. So what did I learn from my “friends” who imported counterfeit cigarettes? Well…they welcomed any tax hikes. In fact, they strongly supported tax increases. The higher the taxes, the more demand for their untaxed product. So their attitude was “bring it on.” Also, at one point during the investigation, a study was released showing decreased cigarette sales which, according to the researchers, demonstrated the success of various government funded stop-smoking campaigns. My targets laughed at the study suggesting the only thing down was the sale of taxed cigarettes, not smoking. Again, I don’t pretend to know the answer. (I will admit I’m still trying to figure out why we tax a sin, count on that revenue, then complain when the users stop sinning and revenues are cut.) 

As the recent spate of political nominees has demonstrated, understanding taxes can be difficult. Apparently even using Turbo Tax doesn’t guarantee strict compliance. It seems every election politicians from both sides of the aisle promise tax reform. It seldom comes with specific proposals. But more and more, specifics are being proposed: There are calls for a Flat Tax. Congressman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin proposes “A Roadmap for America’s Future.” Senator Jim DeMint and others have proposed various reforms: plans, not generalities. One of these plans might be the answer. The April 15^th tax deadline came and went but the Tax Day Tea Parties and tax reform remain a major issue. Maybe now is the time to bring about meaningful discussions. Not just talk but real action. Just think if meaningful reforms were in place Tom Daschle could have been spared a national embarrassment and would be our Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services.

I realize many recent political appointees have had tax avoidance issues but no one has yet been accused of understating their charitable contributions. Even Turbo Tax encourages you to take full advantage of charitable contributions in several different ways, as I’m sure the Treasury Secretary can attest.  But on the bright side, the Biden Family increased their charitable givings fifteen-fold compared to a decade ago.

During the election, Biden released his tax returns for the years 1998 through 2007. In 2007, he and his wife gave $995 to charity on an AGI of $319,853. In no other year in that decade did they give more than $380 to charity–their stingiest year being 1999 when on an AGI of $210,797 they claimed a $120 charitable deduction. When those tax returns were released, a spokesperson commenting on the family’s lack of largess said Biden and his wife “do volunteer work with military families.”

What a person gives to charity is a personal decision. I’m not suggesting otherwise. But when the main thrust of the political campaign is to “spread the wealth,” it seems obvious the Vice-President and his wife had no intent to spread their personal wealth, just everyone else’s.

At least he pays his taxes, which according to him is a patriotic act, and for that our nation should be grateful.