president obama says it's necessary to ensure national security and times of emergency critics call it a blueprint for peace time martial law will tell you how it was going to order and moving us one step closer to war with iran. cyber threat of equal or surpass the threat from the churches in the forseeable future and if you thought the u.s. had insecurities before wait until you see what they're building a new top that's the nation's largest most expensive cyber security project one that the n.s.a. doesn't want you to know about so what are they hiding. plus how much does it take

to buy your own lawmaker it appears some of them called what i have to price tag i'll tell you how special interest groups are buying democracy. it's tuesday march twentieth seven pm here in washington d.c. i'm liz wahl and you're watching artsy. well an executive order signed by president obama has sparked controversy on both sides of the political aisle the national defense resources preparedness executive order was signed quietly friday night it gives the president the power to control u.s. resources in times of war and peace this includes food water oil and transportation now some are concerned this cut leads to the executive branch having absolute authority over the nation's resources and others question if this is all and preparation to go to war with iraq there is a white house press secretary jay carney has answered that question across

conference and some of. the brain power to allocate. it was. before the. plane with. the well i cannot explain the reaction to it i think it was a fairly. standard in which. piece of business. so is this just business as usual or does it give be executive branch on precedence that amount of power let's talk more about this radio host alex jones joined me earlier today from austin texas he told me why he thinks this piece of legislation is so dangerous. americans should be extremely alarmed look at the india a where the president saying he can secretly kill americans and have badge put over our head and have us

thrown into black vans to disappear forever or look at the t.s.a. in the airports groping people look at the drones in our skies look at army checkpoints now the end of posse common taught us what's dangerous about this cold war era emergency legislation is that it was for basically nuclear war and it is for the government taking over infrastructure you notice carney didn't deny that he just says this is business as usual the difference is they're taking that out of the deep freeze and trying to thaw it out and the president said last year during the libya war that hey i don't need congress's approval to launch this war and then two weeks ago they told congress and the secretary defense did i don't need your authorization the president doesn't need it to go into syria we'll do it if we want because the u.n. gives us permission so we have a president and others saying they take orders from the u.n. and they're taking legislation designed for one for when the u.s.

is under a nuclear attack and everything's been destroyed basically they're saying we're going to use this in peacetime so that's the difference and we see the president shutting down power plants without congressional approval so his buddies make more money with their power plants that are left on we see the president nationalizing general motors giving tens of trillions to foreign banks we see the president signing legislation to charge people with felonies if they protested national security events all of this is part of an acceleration it was incremental now it's an acceleration towards classical tyranny and so we would be insane if we weren't concerned about this new executive order alex could testify. it's been an executive similar executive orders and the past one president cited them as that they could be used and special special powers can be used during times of emergency but as you just mentioned this is special this is different because it allows the

president to exercise its authority in times of peace so when what does this mean when can the president now use absolute control. well the president may try to implement this it's still unconstitutional it's still illegal they can pass an n.d.a. saying they can kill me and no one ever knows where i win you know literally blow my head off tie a chain around me throw me in the ocean they're saying i have that power i say it's legal i say it's a violation of common law a bill of rights constitution but yes you're right the difference here is they're saying hey we can do this for any economic emergency or anything else not just during a major world war and so that's why this is so unprecedented and so incredibly dangerous and that's why so many people are concerned about it they just want to bring these powers in and then not have people challenge it they don't like the

fact that they're prying to power grab right now ahead of all these new wars they want to charge and people are standing up and saying if this is wrong including congress legislation has been introduced by walter jones of north carolina that obama launches new wars in syria or other areas without congressional approval that impeachment begins that has not been on any globalist corporate new world order media here in the united states not a.b.c. not fox not seeing it in none of them have covered that impeachment proceedings have begun look there's major power grabs happening and if we don't stand up and to cry and we're all in serious serious danger now you mentioned war and you ran a reporter asked the question if perhaps war with iran this is all in preparation for a war with iran you heard some laughs there. part of the motivation behind this executive order. yeah think about that everyone knows that israel says they're getting ready

to strike iran there's open discussions of it they've got special forces and proxy groups blowing up military bases in iran now that's on record and we see the president putting the u.s. on a war footing and signing a declaration that allows the grabbing of the entire infrastructure that's what it says and people say it does this have to do with iran and people laugh like we're strange because we're actually keeping our eye on the ball that's the biggest sign there that you know how close we are towards this new war they're sending russian troops into syria the russian ships are there dock. all of this china the chinese president two months ago said prepare for war with the us china has never talked like that i mean the world is racing towards a giant conflict and the system doesn't want people to know about this or to be part of the debate they want to see all there is actually they're going to have with iran. it's crazy that there might be

a war how great oh we're saying it will secretly kill citizens if we want and use the military on oh it's crazy to not like that again they don't want to be awake to this they don't want us to be discussing this because we might be able to stop this madness so you think it might be a little bit of a it was an uncomfortable laughter that was raising eyebrows that. this order was tied late friday night before st patrick's day do you find the timing strange at all alex. well it's clear that they didn't want the public debating this or looking at this just like the national defense authorization act was signed in the afternoon on new year's eve december thirty first two thousand and eleven obama had said he didn't want to sign it then it turned out he demanded that the provision for secret arrest of citizens and secret killing and torture be added you know people ask is this martial law yes we've been under

a soft form of martial law with secret erast warrantless spying protesters getting beaten up all of these type of things going on for a long long time now they're telling us tortures good secret arrest of citizens is good the government taking over infrastructure is good they don't deny all this stuff that we weren't people about forever being real now you know before they laugh at you and say it wasn't real now it's real but you're still a conspiracy theorist if you don't trust them well then all the founding fathers of this country were conspiracy theorists and the last thing i want to say is this throughout history. governments have gotten out of control and hurt people and i want to buy and understand this is not even america doing this the same banks you see openly appointing presidents and prime ministers and europe the same mega banks announcing world government are the people that have captured america it's these all of darts that are doing as well they set off shore playing our nations off

against each other we need to come together against the new world order global crime banking center here and restore our country's sovereignty before world war three is started and the good news is the military and police and others that i talk to are waking up in droves and that's why the system is trying to excel or rape or take over and trying to sign these pieces of legislation in the dead of night before a holiday when they think people will be too drunk to notice alex i do want to switch now to another topic i know you have very strong opinions about. also has to do with government expanding powers it's at essays and newest and biggest surveillance program it's called total information awareness the program targets all kinds of electronic information from around the world so this includes emails tweets tax phone conversations you name it from u.s. citizens and here what you're looking at here is the center in due time it's being called the biggest spying machine ever in existence alec should citizens be

concerned about how the government is handling this wealth of information that they will now have. well just five years ago bush denied they were doing this because it was illegal and now i saw a large magazine just a few days ago and they said watch what you say and then they have the secretary of defense they had the cia director. in their portrayal saying oh we're working with industry to have bugs in tracker systems built into all appliances your dishwasher is going to be listening to you watch what you say we don't need warrant sitting or just like they say they'll secretly arrest us just like they say they'll kill us i mean they're just full on taking all this tyranny you know and face now the head of the cia it's illegal by the way to have them involved in a strictly didn't care he says yeah the cia is watching you america that is the system in our case telling us you're

a slave and trying to intimidate us we don't want betray us i'm an american i don't work for goldman sachs like you new world order guys do i'm here to defend my republic and i'm not scared of you no matter what happens what you're doing is illegal and just because you publicly announce you're going to arrest and kill citizens and that you're going to spy on us without warrants and they're going to put troops on the streets and they're going to do all this doesn't make it ok it's like when the troops got caught growing opium under orders three years ago in afghanistan they just hid it in plain sight and had fox news c.n.n. go yeah the troops grow the opium and ship it to you in america but if we catch you where you're going in a prison i mean think about how they hide it in plain view yeah we torture yeah we spy on you yeah we do all of this but it's no big deal get used to it you know what we're not going to get used to it you're indicting and convicting yourselves globalist that you're a bunch of un-american traitors and the people are waking up to what you're doing you have robbed this country blind of tens of trillions of dollars to the banker

bailout you're trying to conquer the us from finding however i do want to bring home to justify colson for some of us and i want to play this sound bite from here at the defense secretary leon panetta here's what he has to say about cybersecurity . the next pearl harbor we confront could very well be a cyber attack cripples or power systems or grid. so cyber security is a concern you know where we're becoming more more modernized we have hacktivists it's kind of part of a more modern eyes of world so shouldn't a government that takes steps to address it if it in fact is a threat. yeah out of the u.s. an israeli government launched a stuxnet on iran and now are using the stocks now as a reason to have the government take over all the infrastructure in the internet and put kill switches and all of the devices when they're the ones that have been caught before launching false flags against the internet structure again this isn't

a u.s. government it's long gone this is a bunch of private globalist who have taken over and hijacked our country saying let us take over the internet and shut down people's free speech to protect it it's the opposite that's not what they're doing again this isn't our government anymore that's the point i'm trying to make here and who is it that writes it what who is it that if it's not our government that's several of us. it is six mega banks goldman sachs j.p. morgan chase and a handful of others that openly have announced a bank of the world the economist magazine in which they've got a goldman sachs takeover of europe hostile takeover of europe it's a private corporate fascist group that have bought off our governments and gotten control of our military they control europe controlling when they control australia they control the united states and everybody better look out including those of us inside the empire because these crooks know that they've got to fully take over or

they're going to end up all going to jail these are crooks these are crazy bankers that make forty to one bets with their own customers money who have nuclear weapons they are completely full of bravado and chutzpah and everybody better look out and here's the bad news he's hearing them won't make them back off it will only make them get crazier they're running y.l. and we are going to be talking more about that later in the show just how special interests are facts our government and rather are not democracy. as present today as it has been in the past alex pleasure to have you. on the show that was alex jones host of the alex jones show oh supporters of republican presidential candidate ron paul feel like they're being ignored and they're getting angry about it take a look at the chaos that broke out at the missouri caucuses yesterday. was.

well here you see paul supporters clashing with g.o.p. officials the organizers say paul backers were being loud in obstructive pulse crowd says they just want to be heard police arrested two of us to call supporters there so are they in fact being disruptive or is this what they need to do in order to get their voices heard but i try to find out what's really going on here i'm joined now by trace dennet co-founder of ron paul swag. so we just saw there things got pretty heated and missouri paul supporters they feel like they're not getting a fair shot do you think there is an effort to silence the. i do absolutely in two thousand and eight i was part of the g.o.p. establishment if you will in texas and prior to all the convention levels not so much the precinct would be at the county convention and the state convention

there's a lot of chatter behind doors that establishment was afraid that ron paul supporters are going to try and take over the convention now is that narrative there or more to shore you know the establishment is always going to effort to keep themselves in control the question is what tactics are they going to employ to do that and i think in st charles it was it was pretty arrogant of the of the officials there to basically change the rules on the fly and to not follow robert's rules of order and basically just have their way with the ground and the way the way they wanted to and frankly it didn't go very well for any party involved now obviously paul does have his supporters i mean we see in the video his dedicated group of followers go by without a g.o.p. than a no are a major cross-section of voter. oh i think that it's hubris unfortunately it's probably more at the local levels people get a sense of power

a sense of entitlement and whenever that power is questioned or somebody else steps up to the plate to let their voice be heard in a convincing voice repeat will the local level care more about. and i think people some of the establishment republicans out of the local level they care more about making sure that their position is solidified that they are going to to maintain a level of power in their local and their local government rather than letting concern dissenting voices come in for example where i'm from in two thousand and eight one of the counties that had a big uproar like this was an oasis county and at the state convention during the credentials committee they had to make this county come in and what happened was very similar to what happened in nine think charles in the story yesterday basically a lot of ron paul delegates ron paul supporters weren't even allowed into the state convention and they didn't have the credentials the basis for that was that they didn't vote in the primary whether or not that's true here we are four years later

and in texas where we're not even having precincts conventions we're actually having to be the central conventions before a primary now they're saying that's never been the case that you don't have to vote in a primary you just have to show up and show that you are a registered voter so they change the rules when ever they want to behind closed doors for example and st louis i'm sorry in st charles they were they already were ready with these brand new house rules that were outside of robert's rules orders which required them to be to start off electing a permanent chairman and then setting up any new house rules so they just kind of steam roll right over us whenever we try to have a dissenting voice and i don't think they care about our cross-section because they watch the media the mainstream media and they don't believe that large but from our perspective we're watching ron paul packed houses every day five thousand. don't rick santorum and romney can't get one hundred two hundred people in the room and

that's exactly why ron paul a very some concern that exact reason it seems like wherever he goes he does have you know they are large numbers turn out to support him get he hasn't won a caucus yet and a couple days ago we reported on the fact that he was raising suspicion over the fact that he didn't think that it added up in here a suspicion that possibly there is fraud going on do you think it's possible that there is going it that there is fraud. read it again where i called i would like to think. unfortunately though it seems pretty apparent that at least on the the way they handle announcements and there's a good chance they're wrong to have one main there's a good chance that he could have won a rico there's all of these discussions our parking had but the question really comes back to can ron paul win when you look at at these different primary elections but they really are just the straw poll they're not the actual delegate

count and not the actual elections so how many people the local news or fox news can get to show to the polls and cast their vote for this week's i don't want romney i don't want ron paul candidate doesn't really matter as much as what happens when we get to the national convention i was a national delegate in two thousand and eight the time i supported john mccain i didn't have an opportunity to vote because that wasn't a brokered convention mccain had delegates he needed was going to be different this time around and i think it's encouraging to ron paul supporters there's an opportunity to actually follow the rules and still help promote the philosophy of liberty at least get getting rumpel into the convention where as you can shut out last time if not actually being able to have an elected i had a real main person for the for the g.o.p. to run against barack obama that's why this whole notion of a. group of people as i kind of contradict the whole point of a democratic election process where everyone's voice is heard.

well again i think most people if it's just their own private they're in positions of power most of them extremely small positions of power but but they want to use that to be able to see the world change in the direction that they want to or stay the same and unfortunately i think too many people on the surface they claim that lead in the constitution they claim they claim that they believe in the first amendment when it comes down to actual using that process to achieve their ends i think they're willing to take whatever shortcuts cuts are necessary to prevent any dissenting voices from being able to do what they want to see happen with the country and then the entre do you think this alienating a group of voters in the end they kind of go back and kind of fight the. cost the white house i absolutely think it will backfire there's no question i mean if you look at two thousand and eight for instance many ron paul supporters were not willing to vote for john mccain the picture candidate and it wasn't that rock won

by a slim vote but if that happens this year hopefully the g.o.p. will learn a lesson in that lesson won't be too too to make the normal claims they do about a third a third candidate who's entered the race or people who want to take their take their ball and go home because they don't want to play their candidate in the like to hope that they don't look at it that way and manner stand that ron paul isn't some section of the republican party or some part of the fight at the fringe element but rather is an emerging part of the party an emerging trend in america it's mostly young people it's in large part in large part of people who realize we're not going to have full security realize that out of control and although the most majority of people who are in congress right now and people who are voting for them and if it was their home watching fox news show up and drove to vote for mitt romney are all going to be collecting social security by the time and that comes due is going to be my generation over the g.o.p. realizes that they will embrace the philosophy of liberty they'll embrace the

libertarian sex of the republican party ron paul supporters but they stand a better chance of winning elections in the future all right thank you for coming on the show that was a co-founder of ron paul flag. well apparently a selling out pays off at least if you're a congressman lawmakers they serve their time make their connections and when they get out get lucrative careers as a lawyer yes there are a few examples former congressman billy tauzin he's a republican from arizona once he jumped to the private sector his salary shot up seven thousand one hundred in ten percent while he was in congress he voted for the bush prescription plan and now he lobbies for pharmaceutical companies and then there is former senator chris dodd he is a democrat from connecticut once he got out of that once he got out of congress he went on to lobby for the motion picture association for america and it paid off his salary increased by seven hundred sixty two percent and here's another example

there is former senator tom daschle will a democrat from south dakota he found a more lucrative career as a lobbyist raking in one thousand two hundred and twenty percent more than he did as a member of congress earlier i spoke to sad to lonnie communications and outreach coordinator for united republic and asked his opinion on whether the change of role for lawmakers were a conflict of interest here's his take. you know exactly is actually took office and it was the first one is that when you're actually in office you're allowed to continue to negotiate with people for your next job so if you're retiring member of congress you could be talking to the n.p.a. or to the drug industry and saying well i want to become a lobbyist for your organization or for your lobby after i leave office and at the very same time you're doing this you could be potentially overseeing legislation going seriously affect their lobby or their industry i mean pro quos are technically illegal but there's very little we'll oversight or regulation of this

and unfortunately that's a huge conflict of interest in the other one of course is that once you leave office you have all those connections within the executive branch of the legislative branch and you can continue to have levels of access for those industries that ordinary people wouldn't have which is why lobbies love to i or former members of congress i don't how often do you think this goes on but it's really interesting the sunlight foundation which is the transparency of your bachelor looked at the careers of everyone who lost a retired in two thousand and ten and the people who are employed now who have jobs . over fifty percent went into some form of lobbying in terms of the people who left congress in twenty ten now well how do you think of this a fax laws that are passed. you know even if i did all sorts with one really good example is judd gregg judd gregg was a senator from new hampshire republican senator and now at the very same time that he was overseeing sort of this financial reform law he was being courted by goldman sachs where he works now doing sort of over government affairs government relations

sorts of things so you can see that these people have a huge faisalabad to sort of please the lobby to get really great employment after leaving office which is always much more lucrative than their current careers now work where you have lobbyists that are congressmen that i'm going to lobbying. as means that conflict of interests whose interests that are lawmakers serving that are supposed to be serving the public. you know exactly i mean the the oath that they take when they enter congress is an oath to the constitution is not know to the drug lobby or chamber of commerce or any other sort of special interest group but what sort of our system does which allows them to legally become lobbyists and it is time to actual cases not a registered lobbyist but he still more or less influence is congress as a consultant you know what it allows them to do sort of to divert the oath that they took to the public and is instead of sort of private interests who are paying their marriages amounts of money now you know america we're supposed to be

a democracy we elect our leaders but doesn't this make the voice of the average said a said that you're out of that one it's very interesting you know you know in the united states we want you know one of the freest country in the world we have an excellent free speech live action it was a right of assembly but unfortunately we still have elections which are fairly privatized meaning to make a campaign yet enormous amounts of money that crosses us in that way and we freely allow our legislators to become lobbyists you know we have no b. and we have cooling off period so we have to wait a year or two depending what your position is or if you're a staffer but you're still freely allowed to lobby and to join up with these private interests and that to me is a perversion of sort of what our country is about because when you're serving a private interest it's a form of tyranny because you're not you're not as people who elected you are sort of people who pay you money and a tiny group of people paying you money have more influence over you than your constituents then it's not really democracy and how does this happen most of it does happen it happens behind closed doors in secret. sure there are

few in terms of negotiating when you're still a sitting member of congress to become a lobbyist there are a few sort of disclosure requirements on the house side unfortunately there's no public disclosure requirement you have to tell the house ethics committee and the public can find out significantly later on the senate side there is talk to requirements but still after the three month period called the lame duck period where they after the election happens you basically are free rein to negotiate with people you know not to disclose immediately the current laws are there full of loopholes and honestly it's probably intentional path of the people in the retiring congress has become law yes of course they don't want rules that will they'll let the public know what they're doing so would you say then that a lot of lawmakers are that motivated by special interests and making money when they get out of office and i think they absolutely are most of them don't want to admit it i mean for example chris dodd he gave an interview in two thousand and seven when he was still senator he's running for president he told glenn greenwald of salon you know who would ever want to.