I have troubles in my Pro Tools HD. I resistered plug-ins with my ilok, but it appears Challenge / Response windows in my projects. Here is my s.

For the last few years, the media has been dominated by a number of sensational stories: that Trump colluded with Russia to influence the presidential election; that the Trump team was wiretapped by Obama intelligence officials; that Hillary used a private email server to transmit classified information; that Hillary and the DNC colluded with Russian sources to compile a dossier on Trump, and finally, that Russia acquired 20% of America’s uranium supply during the same time period $145 million miraculously appeared in the Clinton Foundation’s bank account. It all stinks to high heaven but it’s created a confusing array of facts that has bewildered most Americans. They all know something is seriously wrong with their country even if they can’t pinpoint exactly what the problem is. But there is a common denominator in all these scandals or alleged scandals, and that would be the FBI and the actions they took or didn’t take. Indeed, it’s hard to not conclude that the agency’s actions in these events were improper if not illegal.

If so, this validates the warnings by constitutionalists in the early 1900s that a federal police force would someday be used to prop up the ruling elites and attack those who dare challenge the establishment. Under FBI Director James Comey, Hillary was allowed to escape prosecution, even though he presented compelling evidence that she committed numerous felonies by transmitting classified documents using her private email server. Comey also leaked classified information to a friend to be disseminated to the media, another felony, and his FBI was the recipient of a dossier full of sensational but false allegations traced to Putin-connected individuals. Instead of investigating the dossier’s sources, Comey used the phony intel as the basis for his allegation that the Russians intervened in our election, a charge later proven to be without factual basis. It also appears that Comey likely used the dossier’s claims to convince a FISA court to authorize a phone tap on various Trump aides and possibly even Trump himself.

Lastly, Comey refused to demand that the DNC hand over the computer servers they claimed were hacked by Russia, but nevertheless, he announced that the Russians had hacked into the DNC, thereby helping to create the phony Trump/Russia collusion narrative. But a group of cyber experts led by former high-ranking NSA cyber expert Bill Binney has concluded that the hack simply could not have occurred for technical reasons and that the leaked DNC emails had to come from an inside source. Regardless, for Comey to create a phony “Russia hacked the DNC” narrative without his agency ever analyzing the DNC server calls into question his honesty and his integrity. On top of all that, former FBI director Robert Mueller — now Special Counsel — is investigating Trump for collusion with Russia when the evidence is now revealing that the only party that colluded with the Russians to influence the 2016 campaign was the Democratic Party.

But Mueller doesn’t have the integrity to widen his investigation to cover the Clinton/GPS Fusion/Russian dossier scandal but instead is spending millions on investigating alleged crimes by former Trump campaign workers that occurred years ago and had nothing to do with Trump, Russian collusion, or the 2016 election. Lastly, when Mueller was FBI Director, he served on the board of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), the agency that approved the sale of uranium to Russia by the Uranium One company only a short time after his own agency had arrested a Russian official attempting to bribe American uranium officials.

But there is no record of Mueller warning his fellow CFIUS members about the illegal Russian efforts. It likewise begs logic to believe that Mueller knew nothing about the $145 million the Clinton Foundation received from Putin-connected sources shortly after the CFIUS vote. It is also inconceivable that Mueller, as FBI Director from 2001-2013, was not aware that the Clintons were using their foundation and Hillary’s Secretary of State position to operate a massive pay-to-play scam that went far beyond the Uranium One scandal. It has become abundantly clear that Mueller is a partisan, as is Comey. Both of them have jeopardized national security in order to protect the Democratic Party. This is an unprecedented situation and both men should be investigated.

Moreover, Mueller should be removed as the Special Counsel. The foxes are guarding the hen house.

Mueller and Comey have turned the FBI into a partisan force that ignores crimes by the left and fabricates crimes on the right such as the Trump/Russian collusion theory. Again, such corruption of the FBI was predicted by constitutionalists at the time the agency was formed. That time has arrived.

Within most conservative circles today it would be considered sacrilegious to argue in favor of abolishing the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Indeed, older Americans still think of the FBI as an agency full of incorruptible, efficient, clean-cut guys in suits tracking down mobsters and exposing communist subversion. Younger Americans are influenced by popular shows such as television’s Criminal Minds, which, again, portray the G-Men as squeaky clean heroes. However, it has become increasingly clear in recent years that this agency has become so politicized, so corrupt, and so large and bureaucratic that it may no longer be an effective agency. The time has come to discuss its abolition.

The FBI was started in 1935, although its predecessor — the Bureau of Investigation — was founded in 1908. In the early 1900s, crime was becoming more nationalized with multi-state mob crime families and the creation of large prostitution smuggling rings that crossed state lines. As a result, advocates of a federalized police force argued that a federal law enforcement agency was necessary in order to keep up with the criminals. The main argument was that the local police forces didn’t have the resources or the flexibility to investigate complex criminal cases or to chase mobsters from state to state.

But note that the FBI did not come into existence until 132 years after the country declared its independence. This was because the founders never envisioned a federal role for law enforcement. It is not one of the “enumerated” duties of the federal government listed in the constitution. There were reasons for that. Our founders were skeptical of a large federal government and, indeed, not even the “federalist” faction argued for a federal law enforcement role. The Constitution’s authors all assumed that most of the country’s governing would be carried out by state and local governments; the Federal government was created simply to take care of things that states were not well suited to do, such as maintaining a military, minting currency, and negotiating trade treaties. Indeed, for most of America’s first century, the highest law enforcement officer was the county sheriff.

Except for treason, the idea of federal crimes was not even mentioned in the Constitution. Our founders had a healthy fear of America turning into a tyrannical government such as those which existed all over the world at the time. They wanted to maximize freedom; hence the Bill of Rights. They assumed the creation of a federalized police force would make it far easier for the federal government to abuse the rights of its citizens. This is why neither the Constitution, the ratification debates, nor the Federalist papers ever mention anything about a federal law enforcement role.

Indeed, in Federalist No. 45, James Madison specifically singles out “internal order” as an “unenumerated power” that must “remain in the state governments.” In the last few decades, Congress has created over 3,000 federal crimes, thereby undermining the authority of local law enforcement and ultimately making the federal government more powerful and more prone to corruption and tyranny. As the late Washington Times columnist Sam Francis wrote, “Over the last 30 years or so, the creeping federal incursion into law enforcement has yielded some 140 agencies at the federal level that have such a role but everyone knows the federal engulfment of law enforcement has failed miserably to control crime and make the country safe. That’s because, by its very nature, effective law enforcement is local.” And there’s no doubt that national police forces in other countries have been used to transition a country to a dictatorship.

Historian William L. Shirer wrote in his famous history of Nazi Germany, The Rise and Fall of the Third Rich, “On June 16, 1936, for the first time in German history, a unified police as established for the whole of the Reich — previously the police had been organized separately by each of the states the Third Reich, as is inevitable in the development of all totalitarian dictatorships, had become a police state.” But the FBI has never seemed concerned about its growing powers. Indeed, in the aftermath of WWII, the FBI was so impressed with Hitler’s police state, they secretly hired hundreds of Nazis as spies and informants. As Rutherford Institute president and conservative civil rights lawyer John Whitehead writes, the FBI “then carried out a massive cover-up campaign to ensure that their true identities and ties to Hitler’s holocaust machine would remain unknown. Moreover, anyone who dared to blow the whistle on the FBI’s illicit Nazi ties found himself spied upon, intimidated, harassed and labeled a threat to national security.” But long before the rise of Hitler, America’s founders understood that the more locally controlled law enforcement is, the more accountable they are, whereas, a federal police force tends to be abused by a central government and is largely unaccountable to local and state governments.

Indeed, it is unsettling to review the long list of incidents in which the FBI abused the rights of Americans and was clearly used by one political faction or another to carry out police state-like tactics. Let’s take a trip down memory lane: Prosecuting Opponents of World War 1. President Woodrow Wilson used the FBI’s predecessor to illegally harass and prosecute thousands of peaceful opponents of World War 1, a war most conservatives would argue America had no business entering. This was the FBI’s covert internal security program in the 1950s and ’60s, created to “disrupt, misdirect, discredit, and neutralize” groups and individuals the government deemed to be enemies.

It was carried out under the direction of J. Edgar Hoover with the consent of Attorney General Robert Kennedy. Congressional hearings found that “Many of the techniques used would be intolerable in a democratic society even if all of the targets had been involved in violent activity, but COINTELPRO went far beyond that the Bureau conducted a sophisticated vigilante operation aimed squarely at preventing the exercise of First Amendment rights of speech and association” Many conservatives of the day cheered on COINTELPRO since it targeted Marxists and antiwar groups, but that cheering ended when the FBI set its sights on the right. FBI Preparations for Martial Law. MuckRock, a group that exposes governmental corruption, obtained a 1956 FBI document via a FOIA request that described the FBI’s plans to implement martial law and round up dissidents in the event of nuclear war.

The document, titled “Plan C,” states that ‘”as of April 17, 1956, 12,949 individuals were scheduled for apprehension in an emergency.” The FBI’s secretive list of “anti-government” citizens they felt needed to be rounded up has never been revealed but it’s clear the FBI was keeping files on anti-government individuals. The Ruby Ridge Murders.

In 1992, a BATF informant convinced former Green Beret Randy Weaver to sell him two shotguns which had barrels shortened illegally, thus creating the pretext for the FBI to launch a military-style assault on Weaver’s remote Idaho cabin, eventually killing his wife and fatally shooting his son in the back. The FBI agents violated numerous rules of engagement and an Idaho jury found Weaver innocent of almost all charges. According to author James Bovard, “Judge Lodge issued a lengthy list detailing the Justice Departments misconduct, fabrication of evidence and refusal to obey court orders.” No one was held accountable; indeed the agent in charge, Larry Potts, was promoted to FBI Deputy Director. The Waco Massacre. In 1993, 76 citizens — including 26 children — were burned to death when the FBI laid siege to a Branch Davidian compound in Waco on the grounds they believed cult leader David Koresh possessed unauthorized weapons.

However, there was no reason for the FBI to use police state tactics. Koresh visited town almost every week and could have easily been arrested during these excursions. Six years later the FBI admitted during the course of a civil lawsuit that the tear gas it fired into the compound was, in fact, pyrotechnic tear gas, which, probably caused the fire that killed most of the people. The shells were even stamped with a fire warning.

Moreover, a law enforcement infrared video revealed muzzle flashes from the FBI’s positions, so contrary to the FBI’s testimony that they did not fire “a single shot,” it appears its snipers were shooting people as they tried to escape the compound. Indeed, a Policy Analysis report by the Heritage Foundation stated that “numerous crimes by government agents were never seriously investigated or prosecuted” and therefore, “the people serving in our federal police agencies may well come to the conclusion that it is permissible to recklessly endanger the lives of innocent people, lie to newspapers, obstruct congressional subpoenas, and give misleading testimony in our courtrooms.” Helping Bill Clinton Collect Dirt on his Enemies. Often referred to as “Filegate,” in 1993-94, the FBI willingly turned over as many as 900 background check files on Republicans to the Clinton White House. Nothing came of the investigation into this as the Clintons claimed it was all a big mistake.

Project Megiddo. This was another shady FBI project, launched in 1999, created for the purpose of monitoring groups on the right, such as constitutionalists, devout Christians, anti-tax activists, anti-UN and pro-gun groups and individuals, all considered by the FBI to be budding terrorists. Such descriptions cover just about everyone on the right. It is not known if Project Megiddo violated the rights of individuals as the FBI did with previous similar programs, such as COINTELPRO, but it’s likely. Not surprisingly, much of the info used by Project Megiddo was fed to them by hysterical leftist groups such as the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), as even the FBI has publicly acknowledged.

Use of Criminals as Undercover Agents. Rutherford Institute President John Whitehead writes, “FBI agents are also among the nation’s most notorious lawbreakers. In fact, in addition to creating certain crimes in order to then ‘solve’ them, the FBI also gives certain informants permission to break the law USA Today estimates that agents have authorized criminals to engage in as many as 15 crimes a day.

Some of these informants are getting paid astronomical sums.” Operation Vigilant Eagle. This FBI program initiated in 2009 targeted anti-government activists such as Tea Party activists and, alarmingly, veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars who are, as one FBI document states, “disgruntled, disillusioned or suffering for the psychological effects of war.” The purpose of this program was allegedly to counter terrorism, but there’s not a shred of evidence veterans are more prone to terrorism than any other citizen. Nonetheless, the FBI actually claimed that veterans who challenge the government are suffering from “Oppositional Defiance Disorder (ODD).” One of the program’s first targets was 26-year-old decorated Marine veteran Brandon Raub. Due to posting anti-government statements on his Facebook page, the FBI arrested Raub with no warning, labeled him mentally ill and placed him in a psych ward against his will. Thankfully, Rutherford Institute attorney John Whitehead intervened and secured his release. Whitehead writes that he “may have helped prevent Raub from being successfully ‘disappeared’ by the government.” And this has happened to other veterans. If the FBI paid as much attention to jihadists as it does to military veterans, it would have stopped every domestic terror plot!

Targeting Pro-Lifers. In 2010, The FBI held a joint training session on terrorism with Planned Parenthood and the National Abortion Federation.

The main message of the seminar was that all pro-lifers are potential terrorists, an outrageous allegation. Indeed, material passed out by the pro-aborts at the seminar listed three pages of “anti-abortion websites,” including those of National Right to Life, Concerned Women for America, the American Center for Law and Justice, and Human Life International. None of those groups advocate violence. This is another example of how the FBI allows itself to be used by the left to go after its enemies. Similarly, during Bill Clinton’s presidency, the FBI created a project called VAAPCON to create files on pro-life religious leaders such as Rev. Jerry Falwell. Indeed, Judicial Watch, representing Falwell, sued the Clinton White House, seeking info on the project, but all the files mysteriously disappeared, Clinton style.

The IRS Scandal. The government watchdog group, Judicial Watch, obtained documents revealing that the FBI was involved with the illegal IRS effort to investigate — and thus silence— around 500 conservative and Tea Party groups during Obama’s 2012 reelection.

Perhaps the worst use of the IRS in American history, this was about manipulating the 2012 presidential election and the FBI was complicit in this abuse of governmental power. As JWs Tom Fitton writes, “Both the FBI and Justice Department collaborated with Lois Lerner and the IRS to try to persecute and jail Barack Obama’s political opponents.” FBI Worked With the SPLC. For much of the Obama era, the FBI listed the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) on its website as part of its effort to combat “hate crimes.” However, many of the groups identified by the SPLC as “hate groups” are not. One example is the Family Research Council, a mainstream pro-family organization. As a result of the FBI’s promotion of SPLC’s phony hate group list, a shooter entered FRC’s headquarters in 2012, wounding the front desk security guard and attempted to slaughter all the FRC employees. He was subdued by the wounded guard. Indeed, the SPLC believes all Christian groups that oppose the gay agenda or abortion are “hate groups,” a bizarre notion that has never been condemned by the FBI even though it did, in 2014, quietly drop the SPLC from its website.

Data Mining Innocent Americans. In 2013, Bloomberg exposed the FBI’s data mining project carried out on hundreds of thousands of Americans, most of whom were not guilty of any crimes. Raids on Homes of Anti-Government Activists. Repeatedly, the FBI has raided homes on the flimsiest of evidence. In 2014, it raided the home of prepper Martin Winters, claiming he was some kind of domestic terrorist. But nothing was found aside from food stocks and other survivalist gear. Then there’s Terry Porter, also a prepper, whose house the FBI raided in 2012 using twice as many agents as in the Branch Davidian raid.

Again, nothing alarming found there. Since when did anti-government preppers become terrorists? The FBI raids group meetings as well, such as when it raided a Republic of Texas secessionist movement meeting in 2015.

No one was arrested because no one did anything illegal. But once again, the FBI treated a handful of elderly men discussing constitutional issues as a terrorist plot. Fraudulent Forensics. Special Agent and whistleblower Frederic Whitehurst revealed in 2015 that FBI crime lab technicians routinely testified falsely about crime lab samples throughout the 1980s and 1990s. As former Judge Andrew Napolitano writes, “its agents and lab technicians who examine hair samples testified falsely in 257 of 268 cases that resulted in convictions. Of the convictions, 18 persons were sentenced to death, and of those, 12 have been executed.” Yes, innocent people died, thanks to the FBI.

FBI High School Informer Network. In 2016, the FBI launched an effort to enlist the help of high school students to ostensibly identify terrorists, but the FBI documents in question reveal they were also urging students to report on anti-government groups such as libertarian and constitutional groups. This effort is shockingly similar to the informant networks set up by the KGB in the USSR and the Stasi in East Germany. The FBI Record on Fighting Terrorism. Many Americans assume, however, that at least in the area of Islamic terrorism, the FBI has kept Americans largely safe.

The record doesn’t quite show that. In fact, the agency has blundered many terrorism investigations and thus jeopardized the security of Americans. Examples: • In 2009, Islamist Nidal Hasan fatally shot 13 people at the Fort Hood Military Base, but his radical associations and open support for jihad were previously known by the FBI. It even had emails in which Hasan stated he wanted to kill his fellow soldiers. Indeed, records show that not only was there reluctance by officials to drum Hasan out of the military — for political reasons — but he was promoted at every opportunity. • In 2013, local officials caught seven foreign Muslims trespassing after midnight onto Quabbin Reservoir, a critical Northwest drinking reservoir. The FBI took over the case but let the trespassers go because they believe them to be just “tourists.” Yes, just midnight tourists.

Only a few months earlier, another terrorist had been arrested for planning to poison a different reservoir. • In 2013, the Tsarnaev brothers bombed the Boston Marathon, killing three people and injuring hundreds more. Russian intelligence warned the FBI about Tamerlan Tsarnaev and the agency even interviewed him, but it appears the FBI determined that Russia’s intelligence was not accurate. Until the bombs went off. • In 2015, when the government watchdog group Judicial Watch obtained documents confirming that ISIS terrorists were crossing the Mexican/Texas border, concerned FBI agents held meetings at the U.S.

Consulate in Ciudad Juarez with Mexican officials. But not to figure out a plan to deal with such crossings, but rather to deny these allegations and to determine who leaked the info to JW.

Forget the message and attack the messenger. What a great counter-terrorism strategy.

• In 2015, the FBI failed to prevent the San Bernardino terror attack by an Islamic couple from Pakistan connected to an Islamic terrorist group whose files were among those purged earlier by the FBI, thereby making it nearly impossible for the agency to detect this pair. • In 2015, two Islamic terrorists attacked a Muhammad art expo in Garland, Texas, but the FBI actually had an informant at the scene with the terrorists, but it never bothered to warn the expo’s organizers of the impending attack. Apparently, the agency didn’t want to blow the informant’s cover! Fortunately, security guard Bruce Joiner shot and killed both shooters before they could get inside the exhibition hall.

Joiner wonders why the FBI would allow this attack to transpire, stating “That’s not the kind of thing we do in the United States with our citizens.” • In 2016, Islamist Omar Mateen slaughtered 49 people at an Orlando nightclub. While the FBI did investigate him for 10 months it closed his file because it believed he was “being marginalized because of his Muslim faith.” Seriously. • The FBI has flat out denied that Las Vegas shooter Steven Paddock has any Islamic terror connections, but the reality is it really doesn’t know enough about him to make such a claim. Indeed, ISIS never takes credit for attacks that are not its own and on three occasions, it has announced Paddock was connected to ISIS. It even revealed Paddock’s Islamic name: Abu Abdul Barr al-Amriki. Also, Paddock made trips to the Middle East.

Given the FBI’s record, ISIS’s statements may be more credible than the FBI’s denials. • The latest terrorist incident in New York City was also bungled.

Months before Sayfullo Saipov mowed down over 20 people, the FBI interviewed him because it knew he was connected to two men with terrorist connections. As such, his visa should have been revoked and he should have been deported, but the agency didn’t even open up a file on him. • Finally, the 9/11 terrorist attack itself could have been prevented by the FBI. It had enough intel to connect the dots but didn’t. Many of its pre-9/11 reports on al Qaeda were lost or not shared with the proper people. One was a memo by Phoenix FBI Agent Ken Williams, describing suspected al Qaeda members training at U.S. Flight schools.

How could that not result in a full-scale investigation? And Special Agent Mark Rossini sent a message to FBI headquarters warning that 9/11 hijacker Khalid al-Mihdhar had a multi-entry visa to enter the U.S. But that cable went “missing” when Congress held hearings on how our intelligence agencies manage to completely miss so many obvious clues. And there are many other examples that can’t be cited here due to lack of space, but it’s difficult to find a domestic terrorist investigation that the FBI hasn’t screwed up.

The above incidents alone cost the lives of almost 3,200 Americans. One would think that in the aftermath of 9/11, the FBI would make an effort to become more efficient when it comes to counter-terrorism, but with the 2008 election of Barack Obama, the FBI not only remained overly bureaucratic but became hyper politically correct. Incredible as it may seem, in 2011, Obama’s FBI Director, Robert Mueller, met with a coalition of radical Islamic groups and agreed to purge thousands of files “offensive” to Muslims.

Judicial Watch said the “purge is part of a broader Islamic ‘influence operation’ aimed at our government and constitution.” In other words, the FBI caved in to groups that do not have our best interests at heart. Indeed, two of the groups Mueller met with, ISNA and CAIR, were unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land Foundation terror funding case. Many terror experts believe this purge crippled the FBI’s abilities to detect some of the terror plots that occurred during the Obama years. Due to its desire not to offend Muslims, the FBI jeopardized the lives of many Americans. Conservatives Should Quit Defending the FBI The FBI has a long history of being used by various administrations to harass certain groups and individuals, or, conversely, to allow certain groups and individuals to commit crimes without fear of prosecution. The FBI is supposed to uphold the Constitution but instead has repeatedly violated the constitutional rights of Americans. This politicization has cost many Americans their lives and their freedoms.

The abuse listed here is not comprehensive but it’s enough, one would think, to make conservatives think twice about defending this agency’s police state tactics. Indeed, the Wall Street Journal has reported that “nearly one out of every three American adults are on file in the FBI’s master criminal database,” even though most of them have not been convicted of a crime. Does anyone really believe our founding fathers would be fine with such sweeping federal law enforcement powers? The aforementioned conservative civil rights attorney, John Whitehead, summarizes today’s FBI: “In additions to procedural misconduct, trespassing, enabling criminal activity, and damaging private property, the FBI’s laundry list of crimes against the American people includes surveillance, disinformation, blackmail, entrapment, intimidation tactics, and harassment.” President Harry Truman once said, “We want no Gestapo or secret police. The FBI is trending in that direction.” And that was 72 years ago.

It’s Time to Turn Over FBI Investigations to the States If the FBI was abolished and its workload turned over to the states, it would not be as difficult as some would portray it. Indeed, what most Americans don’t realize is that almost every state already has a state version of the FBI. New Mexico has the New Mexico State Police, the Golden State has the California Bureau of Investigation, Texas has both the Texas Rangers and the Texas Department of Public Safety, and Georgia has the Georgia Bureau of investigation. (One can view the list.) Moreover, all these agencies are equipped with crime labs and the latest forensic tools. At one time, such tools were prohibitively expensive for state police agencies to acquire, but technological advances have brought the cost of such equipment down, resulting in most states having the latest forensics equipment that at one time was monopolized by the FBI. For example, the Georgia Bureau of Investigation is famous for its forensic work: “The Division of Forensic Sciences envisions a future in which we continue to build and develop an internationally recognized forensic laboratory system that partners with governmental and private entities.” Today, much of the FBI’s work entails the investigation of federal crimes committed within one state. There is no reason why the states can’t handle these investigations and if the case does happen to cross over into other states, then the states simply coordinate.

Those days in which a criminal would escape the law by crossing a state line are long gone. Indeed, that practice was one of the reasons why the FBI was created, but with today’s advances in communication technology, that simply doesn’t happen anymore.

All states today have the technology to easily track criminals as they cross state lines and it’s not difficult for two states or more to work together in the apprehension of a criminal. Already, states today cooperate on a wide array of governmental actions; there is no reason why they can’t coordinate on a police investigation or criminal apprehension. Some of the FBI’s workload involves complex white-collar cases such as tax evasion, money laundering, bank fraud, and commodities fraud, but if a state police agency feels it doesn’t have the expertise to investigate such crimes, it can enlist the assistance of existing agencies that already investigate such crimes. The IRS, Securities Exchange Commission, Treasury Department and the Secret Service all have investigative branches that handle different aspects of financial crimes. Then, of course, there are the federal crime databases largely maintained by the FBI, including the National Crime Information Center database, the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, the Integrated Fingerprint Identification System, and the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS).

These databases should be turned over to the Department of Justice, which, in part, already play a role in maintaining them. More importantly, the state police agencies will need to be given ready access to these databases if they are to take on cases formerly handled by the FBI. State law enforcement agencies are not perfect but it is far more difficult for the federal government to politicize the actions of a state agency. Moreover, it is much easier to hold state agencies accountable for any abuses they commit, just by virtue of being closer to the people. Indeed, with access to federal crime databases, most state police agencies have the capability to handle cases the FBI now handles, including domestic terrorist investigations. It’s a good bet that, given the FBI’s record on terrorism, the states will do a better job at stopping and preventing terrorism.

America’s founders were wise men and they knew not to make law enforcement a federal responsibility. They foresaw how the federal government could use a national police agency to play favorites, wreak havoc on our democratic institutions, and ultimately move us closer to a police state.

The only question that remains is whether any politician will have the guts to initiate discussion on abolishing the FBI.

For other people named Gary Hart, see. See also: Following the in, U.S. Senator of co-chaired a commission that revised the Democratic presidential nomination structure.

The new structure weakened the influence of such old-style party bosses such as Chicago Mayor, who were once able to hand-pick national convention delegates and dictate the way they voted. The new rules made caucuses a process in which relative newcomers could participate without paying dues to established party organizations.

In the, McGovern named Hart his national campaign director. Along with, an expert on the new system, they decided on a strategy to focus on the 28 states holding caucuses instead of primary elections. They felt the nature of the caucuses made them easier (and less costly) to win if they targeted their efforts. While their primary election strategy proved successful in winning the nomination, McGovern would go on to lose the in one of the most lopsided elections in U.S. United States Senator [ ] In 1974, Hart ran for the United States Senate, challenging two-term incumbent Republican. Hart was aided by Colorado's trend toward Democrats during the early 1970s, as well as Dominick's continued support for the unpopular President and concerns about the senator's age and health.

In the general election, Hart won by a wide margin (57.2% to Dominick's 39.5%) and was immediately labeled a rising star. He got a seat on the Armed Services Committee, and was an early supporter of reforming the bidding for military contracts, as well as an advocate for the military using smaller, more mobile weapons and equipment, as opposed to the traditional large scale items. He also served on the Environment and Public Work Committee and the Senate Intelligence Committee. From 1975 to 1976, Hart was a member of the post- ' that investigated abuses by the,, and the. Hart served as the chairman of Senate Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation. He flew over the nuclear reactor near, in an Army helicopter several times with minority member during the metonymic nuclear accident and led the subsequent Senate investigation into the incident. In 1980, he sought a second term.

In something of a surprise, his Republican opponent was Mary Estill Buchanan, a moderate candidate who narrowly defeated the more choice,, in the party primary, by less than 2,000 primary votes., Callaway had been the Republican gubernatorial nominee in his native. Callaway in the early 1970s had bought and run an elegant resort in Crested Butte. Buchanan had hit Hart hard for supporting the and for backing then-President in 80% of his Senate votes.

Buchanan charged in a campaign ad about Hart: 'He votes one way and talks another when he is back here. He is a liberal, McGovernite carpetbagger.' Hart responded that Buchanan's charges reflected her narrow viewpoint and insisted that his campaign would rise above partisanship. Said Hart in a campaign ad: 'I will not ignore her. We will interact and debate, but I am going to run a campaign for the 1980s. What is her plan for the environment?

For national defense? For the economy? It took me a year or so to formulate my ideas.' In the end, Hart won narrowly, with 50.2% of the vote to his opponent's 49.8%. Hart cosponsored the with Senator, which was signed into law.

The act created a new category of intellectual property rights that makes the of legally protected upon registration, and hence illegal to copy without permission. This protected Silicon Valley chips from cheap foreign imitations. Similar legislation had been proposed in every Congress since 1979. It led to Hart being called the leader of the. Conservative Republican Senator remarked of Hart, 'You can disagree with him politically, but I have never met a man who is more honest and more moral.'

Hart, like Walter Mondale and Jesse Jackson, was pro-choice on the issue of. United States Naval Reserve service [ ]. Hart (on the right) accepting his US Naval Reserve commission from Secretary of the Navy Edward Hidalgo, December 4, 1980 Citing the increasing likelihood of an armed conflict in the and his reluctance to 'stay in the Senate and authorize and appropriate funds to send young men like my son off to fight that war,' Hart applied for a commission in the 's Active Status List program in the late 1970s. He was over the statutory age limit of 38 and had not amassed any prior military experience; moreover, in contrast to his stated rationale, this category 'would not be called up immediately in the event of a mobilization.' By mutual agreement, Hart and deferred the consideration of the request until the aftermath of the 1980 election.

His application contained an incorrect birth date (November 28, 1937) that he had used inconsistently on official documents for fifteen years. Following his reelection, Hart received an age waiver from Hidalgo and was commissioned as a in the on December 4, 1980. The commission carried 'no pay or allowances.' Although Hart sought to be commissioned in the grades of or (in keeping with contemporaries in Congress who had served in and the ), Navy Judge Advocate General John S. Jenkins advised Hidalgo to commission Hart at the lower rank because he 'didn't bring to the program anything that was so unusual that we could recommend appointment at a higher grade.' However, then-U.S. Navy Senate liaison officer (who cultivated a close friendship with Hart in that capacity, presaging his own political career) maintained in a 1984 interview that a field officer appointment would have been 'appropriate.'

Following ten days of active duty with the in August 1981, Hart was promoted to on January 1, 1982. Pundits such as and suggested that Hart's appointment was a cynical political maneuver designed to 'clear the biographical decks' for the 1984 presidential election in an era where military service was perceived as a tacit prerequisite for the presidency. In a 2007 commentary for, Hart asserted that his desire to 'understand and communicate better with our troops' was the primary motivation for his appointment. Although he 'did not routinely fulfill [his] reserve duties' and 'chose not to feature this experience in subsequent campaigns,' he maintained that his service 'helped [him] enormously in appreciating what our military does to make us more secure.' 1984 presidential campaign [ ]. Campaign logo In February 1983, during his second term, Hart announced his candidacy for president in the. At the time of his announcement, Hart was a little-known senator and barely received above 1 percent in the polls against better-known candidates such as, and.

To counter this situation, Hart started campaigning early in, making a then-unprecedented canvassing tour in late September, months before the primary. This strategy attracted national media attention to his campaign, and by late 1983, he had risen moderately in the polls to the middle of the field, mostly at the expense of the sinking candidacies of Glenn and.

Mondale won the in late January, but Hart polled a respectable 16 percent. Two weeks later, in the New Hampshire primary, he shocked much of the party establishment and the media by defeating Mondale by 10 percentage points. Hart instantly became the main challenger to Mondale for the nomination and appeared to have the momentum on his side. Hart's media campaign was produced by, a native Texan who had begun his career in. Hart could not overcome Mondale's financial and organizational advantages, especially among leaders in the and industrial. Hart's campaign was chronically in debt, to a final count of $4.75 million. In states like, where were elected directly by voters, Hart often had incomplete delegate slates.

Hart's ideas were criticized as too vague and by many Democrats. Shortly after he became the new frontrunner, it was revealed that Hart had changed his last name, had often listed 1937 instead of 1936 as his birth date and had changed his signature several times. This, along with two separations from his wife, Lee, caused some to question Hart's 'flake factor.' Nonetheless, he and his wife have remained married for almost 60 years. The two men swapped victories in the primaries, with Hart getting exposure as a candidate with 'new ideas' and Mondale rallying the party establishment to his side. The two men fought to a draw in the, with Hart winning states in the West, and. Mondale fought back and began ridiculing Hart's campaign platform.

The most famous television moment of the campaign was during a debate when he mocked Hart's 'new ideas' by quoting a line from a popular at the time: ' Hart's campaign could not effectively counter this remark, and when he ran negative TV commercials against Mondale in the primary, his appeal as a new kind of Democrat never entirely recovered. Hart lost the and primaries, but won those of and. Mondale gradually pulled away from Hart in the delegate count, but the race was not decided until June, on. Decided that day were delegates from five states:,,, and. The proportional nature of delegate selection meant that Mondale was likely to obtain enough delegates on that day to secure the stated support of an overall majority of delegates, and hence the nomination, no matter who actually 'won' the states contested. However, Hart maintained that unpledged that had previously claimed support for Mondale would shift to his side if he swept the Super Tuesday III primary.

Once again, Hart committed a faux pas, insulting New Jersey shortly before the primary day. Campaigning in California, he remarked that while the 'bad news' was that he and his wife had to campaign separately, '[T]he good news for her is that she campaigns in California while I campaign in New Jersey.' Compounding the problem, when his wife interjected that she 'got to hold a koala bear', Hart replied that 'I won't tell you what I got to hold: samples from a dump.' While Hart won California, he lost New Jersey after leading in polls by as much as 15 points. Gary Hart in San Francisco, 1984. By the time the final primaries concluded, Mondale had a considerable lead in total delegates, though he was 40 delegates short of clinching victory. Superdelegates voted overwhelmingly for Mondale at the in on July 16, making him the presidential nominee.

Hart, already aware that the nomination was all but Mondale's after the final primaries, lobbied for the vice presidential slot on the ticket, claiming that he would do better than Mondale against President (an argument undercut by a June 1984 that showed both men nine points behind the president). While Hart was given serious consideration, Mondale chose instead.

In his address to the convention, after his name was placed in nomination for president by Nebraska governor and he received a 15-minute standing ovation, Hart concluded, “Our party and our country will continue to hear from us. This is one Hart you will not leave in San Francisco.” This race for the nomination was the most recent occasion that a major party presidential nomination has. Mondale was later defeated in a landslide by the incumbent Reagan, winning only his home state of Minnesota and the District of Columbia. Many felt that Hart and other similar candidates, younger and more independent-minded, represented the future of the party.

Hart had refused to take money from Political Action Committees (PACs), and as a result he mortgaged his house to self-finance his campaign, and was more than $1 million in debt at the end of the campaign. 1988 presidential campaign [ ]. Campaign logo Hart declined to run for re-election to the Senate, leaving office when his second term expired with the intent of running for president again. On December 20, 1986, Hart was allegedly followed by an anonymous private investigator from a radio station where he had given the Democratic Party's response to President Reagan's weekly radio address. That alleged PI report claimed that Hart had been followed to a woman's house, photographed there, and left sometime the following morning.

This allegation would ultimately cause him to suspend his planned presidential campaign. After announced that he would not enter the race in February 1987, Hart was the clear frontrunner for the Democratic nomination in the. Hart officially declared his candidacy on April 13, 1987. When Lois Romano, a reporter for The Washington Post, asked Hart to respond to rumors spread by other campaigns that he was a 'womanizer', Hart said such candidates were 'not going to win that way, because you don't get to the top by tearing someone else down.' The New York Post reported that comment on its front page with the headline lead in 'Straight from the Hart', followed below with big, black block letters: 'GARY: I'M NO WOMANIZER. This section of a needs additional for. Please help by adding.

Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially or harmful. (November 2014) () After his Senate service and presidential races, Hart resumed his law practice. He remained moderately active in public policy matters, serving on the bipartisan, also known as the Hart–Rudman Commission, commissioned on behalf of in 1998 to study U.S.. The commission issued several findings calling for broad changes to security policy, but none was implemented until after the. He earned a in politics from the in 2001 with a dissertation entitled The Restoration of the Republic; while at Oxford, he was a member of. Hart gave a speech before the American international law firm on September 4, 2001, exactly one week before the September 11 attacks, warning that within the next 25 years a terrorist attack would lead to mass deaths in the United States. Hart met with aviation executives in Montreal, Canada, on September 5, 2001, to warn of airborne terrorist attacks.

The Montreal Gazette reported the story the following day with a headline, “Thousands Will Die, Ex-Presidential Hopeful Says.” On September 6, 2001, Hart met with National Security Adviser to urge, 'You must move more quickly on homeland security. An attack is going to happen.' In a subsequent interview with, Hart accused President and other administration officials of ignoring his warnings. In late 2002, urged by former Oxford classmates, Hart began testing the waters for another run for the presidency, launching a website at GaryHartNews.com and a related speaking tour to gauge reactions from the public. He started his own blog in the spring of 2003, the first prospective presidential candidate to do so. After a few months of speaking, Hart decided not to run for president and instead endorsed Democrat. According to an October 23, 2004 article and later reports in the, Hart was mentioned as a probable Cabinet appointment if Kerry won the presidency.

He was considered a top candidate for either,. Since May 2005, he has been a contributing blogger. He is a member of the. Hart also sits on the Advisory Board of Operation USA, a Los Angeles-based international relief and development agency. It was announced in January 2006 that Hart will hold an endowed professorship at the. He is the author of, part of the series on American presidents published in October 2005.

Hart is an Honorary Fellow of the Literary & Historical Society of. He is an Advisory Board member for the, a not-for-profit organization dedicated to recreating the bipartisan center in American national security and foreign policy.

In September 2007, The Huffington Post published Hart's letter, 'Unsolicited Advice to the Government of Iran', in which he stated that 'Provocation is no longer required to take America to war' and warns that 'for the next sixteen months or so, you should not only not take provocative actions, you should not seem to be doing so.' He went on to suggest that the - administration was waiting for an opportunity to attack, writing: 'Don't give a certain vice president we know the justification he is seeking to attack your country.'

Hart linked American with national security in an essay published in November 2007. Hart wrote, 'In fact, we do have an energy policy: It’s to continue to import more than half our and sacrifice American lives so we can drive our. This is our current policy, and it is massively immoral.' Hart currently sits on the board of directors for the Energy Literacy Advocates. He founded the American Security Project in 2007 and he started a new blog in 2009.

Since retiring from the Senate, he has emerged as a consultant on, and continues to speak on a wide range of issues, including the environment and. In 2006, Hart accepted an endowed professorship at the. He has been a visiting lecturer at Oxford University,, and the. He is Chair of the 's International Security Advisory Council, Chair of the 's Threat Advisory Council, and Chair of the. He was Vice-Chair of the Advisory Council for the, Co-Chair of the U.S.-Russia Commission, Chairman of the, and President of, the U.S. Affiliate of Mikhail Gorbachev's environmental foundation.

Most notably, he was Co-Chair of the U.S. Commission on National Security for the 21st Century, known as the, which predicted terrorist attacks on America before.

He has written or co-authored numerous books and articles, including five well-received novels. Appointed U.S. Special Envoy for Northern Ireland [ ] In October 2014, President along with Secretary of State named Hart as the new. Hart is the second former U.S. Senator to hold the post. The first was, former seat-mate and former, who served from 1995-2001. In a statement, Kerry called Hart 'a longtime friend' and said he was 'a problem-solver, a brilliant analyst, and someone capable of thinking at once tactically, strategically, and practically.'

• Dana Weems, who at the time the call was made, was a recent acquaintance of, stated in a 2014 article that she had been the caller. Weems also 'repeatedly insisted' that she had contacted the Herald only after reading Hart's 'follow me around' quote, which was, in fact, only printed by the New York Times Magazine on the same day as the Herald's story about Rice's visit to Hart's townhouse. She had denied being the caller at the time, when it was noted that Weems was not a registered voter, and did not match the description of being a 'liberal Democrat', as the Herald reported.

In addition to Weems, Rice noted that she had told only two other people about the trip to Washington, D.C., Lynn Armandt, who had accompanied her on the yacht, and model Julie Semones, who had accompanied Rice on a visit to meet on his yacht. • Hart has never seen Rice since she left that night; they spoke in one phone call in 1998. References [ ]. Retrieved January 13, 2017.

• ^ Garry Clifford, Peter Carlson,, People Magazine, (Vol. 8, August 22, 1983) • Richard Ben Cramer, 'What It Takes: The Way To The White House' (Random House 1992) pg. Retrieved November 8, 2012. •, New York Times, April 14, 1987 • Purdum, Todd.. Retrieved January 21, 2015. • • Amy Goodman interview of Gary Hart (March 28, 2006) • Nuclear accident and recovery at Three Mile Island: a report / prepared by the Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation for the Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S.

Senate, Washington: U.S. G.P.O.(1980) •.

September 29, 1980. • ^ Michael D. Scott, Scott on Information Technology Law (Third Edition 2014) section 5.01 • Carlin, David R. Sophia Institute Press.. • • • • • • • • • • • •..

Archived from on November 3, 2013. Retrieved October 10, 2013. • Lindsay, Robert 'Convention Sideline: Raising Money', New York Times, July 21, 1984, pg. 11 • on • Ed Magnuson (June 18, 1984)... Church (June 4, 1984)...

• ^ Evan Thomas (June 11, 1984)... • Gary Hart, et al., C-SPAN. (July 18, 1984) • Phil Hirschkorn,, Salon. (February 15, 2015) • ^ David Johnston.

(June 7, 1987).. The New York Times. • John Dillin for The Christian Science Monitor.

February 23, 1987 • E Lungi Dance Honey Singh Official Video Download here. . (January 25, 1987).. The New York Times. • Gary Hart, (April 13, 1987) • Robin Toner (April 14, 1987).. The New York Times. It's an issue of recapturing our basic principles, beliefs and values.

• Gary Hart,, C-SPAN. (April 14, 1987) • James Coates,, Chicago Tribune. (April 14, 1987) • ^ William Safire. (May 3, 1987).. The New York Times. • ^ Matt Bai.

All The Truth Is Out: The Week That Politics Went Tabloid. Knopf (September 30, 2014) • ^ Bai, Matt (September 18, 2014).. The New York Times Magazine.

• ^ Rice Suspects Model Spilled Hart Beans, Atlanta Journal Constitution, (May 18, 1987) • Taylor, Paul (1990). See How They Run.. The Miami Herald. May 10, 1987. (May 3, 1987).. The New York Times.

(May 4, 1987).. The New York Times.

A16 • Maureen Dowd, 'Liberties; Change of Hart', New York Times, March 22, 1998 • James Savage, 'Following Gary Hart', New York Times (March 31, 1998) • ^ Johnston, David; King, Wayne; Nordheimer, Jon (May 9, 1987).. The New York Times. • Gary Hart, 'Hart News Conference', C-SPAN (May 6, 1987) • ^ Matt Bai. All The Truth Is Out: The Week That Politics Went Tabloid. Knopf (September 30, 2014) p.

136 • John Dillin, Press Unfair to Hart? Polls Show Public Concern; Experts Back Tough Scrutiny', The Christian Science Monitor (May 12, 1987) • John Dillin, PRESS UNFAIR TO HART?

Polls Show Public Concern; Experts Back Tough Scrutiny', The Christian Science Monitor (May 12, 1987) • Matt Bai. All The Truth Is Out: The Week That Politics Went Tabloid. Knopf (September 30, 2014) p. 129 • ^ Gary Hart, 'Hart First Withdrawal' C-SPAN (May 8, 1987) • ^ New York Times, Transcript Of Hart Statement Withdrawing His Candidacy (May 8, 1987) • Maureen Dowd, 'Liberties; Change of Hart', New York Times, March 22, 1998 • ^.

The New York Times. July 16, 1987.

Associated Press. August 25, 1987. • Warren Weaver, Jr. For the New York Times. September 29, 1987 • Bob Drogin for the Los Angeles Times. December 16, 1987 • ^. December 15, 1987.

Retrieved January 13, 2017. Berke for the New York Times. January 10, 1988 • Richard L Berke for the New York Times January 22, 1988 • Dartmouth College. Page accessed November 19, 2014 • Associated Press, in the Los Angeles Times. March 13, 1988 • Gary Hart, 'Hart Second Withdrawal' C-Span (March 11, 1988) • ^ Talbot, David (April 2, 2004)..

Retrieved May 5, 2012. • Bauch, Hubert (September 6, 2001)..

Montreal Gazette. Archived from on December 18, 2001. • Gary Hart, WABC interview with John Batchelor and Paul Alexander, May 28, 2002.

• • • Gary Hart. • Gary Hart •. Retrieved January 13, 2017. • Gary Hart • • Berman, Russell.. Retrieved January 13, 2017.

Retrieved January 13, 2017. Retrieved January 13, 2017. Retrieved January 13, 2017. Retrieved January 13, 2017.

Retrieved January 13, 2017. Retrieved January 13, 2017. Retrieved January 13, 2017. Retrieved January 13, 2017. • Tbradford (June 7, 2015)..

Retrieved January 13, 2017 – via YouTube. Retrieved January 13, 2017. Retrieved February 9, 2016. External links [ ] • Source material: • Ferguson, Andrew (January 24, 2000).. Time Magazine. Retrieved September 24, 2010. Retrieved September 24, 2010.

Archived from on November 14, 2007. Retrieved September 24, 2010. Retrieved September 24, 2010. • on Party political offices Preceded by nominee for from (), Succeeded by Vacant.