>> you just mentioned paris. and, of course, september 11th. we are at war with islamic extremism. they have declared war on us and on the west. whether we acknowledge it or not, i think the whole world understands that but this administration, on the other hand -- neil: they're bending over backwards not to use that term. >> i cannot believe how they can refer to the fort massacre as workplace violence. it's terror. we have to stand against it. neil: it affects how you stand against the bad guys. >> yeah. and that's domestically. but look at isis. isis has territory they control. hundreds of millions of dollars. they hacked the central command's socialcommand's social
network. they're recruiting on on the on internet. we have to destroy isis. work with whoever else we can. not try to create a democracy. but we cannot allow this cancer to linger. we will be attacked here if this continues. neil: 9/11 was obviously a different case. thank our lucky stars you were there at the time. the vigilance we had for that obviously matched the huge nature of that. but a lot of people in your old position say, well these are little incidents, heinous incidents, horrible incidents, but let's not respond to that magnitude. what do you say? >> i think they're totally wrong. we had a number of attacks, things like the bombing of the world trade center, eight years before september 11th. they were treated as criminal -- not what they are. radical islam declaring war on the west.
neil: did we issue a decree against them? >> that's not the case. we are at war. the president referred to degrading isis over time exactly what happened in yemen. well, one of the paris attackers apparently trained in yemen. yemen is not doing well. they are recruiting on the internet. neil: the government apparently has no control what these guys are doing in yemen or they're in cahoots with them, what do you mean? >> i don't think the baghdad government is in cahoots. they're just incompetent. i don't think they're in cahoots -- neil: you think the wild west is crazy? >> yemen, you have an organized radical terrorist group against a government that is semicompetent. much as i hate sending troops overseas. both my sons served overseas. we cannot let this
happen. we have to wipe out isis sooner rather than later. we have to prevent people from having terrorist training camps where they plot and train and ultimately carry out attacks, not just in paris or ottawa but here in the united states. neil: well-put. richard newton says americans are forgetting about what terror threats do. the administration is ending a message that they don't have to worry at all. general, when that comes from the top, people feel not cocky but they don't worry that much because the president says we don't have to. >> neil, i certainly echo what the general said in terms of that we are at war, to me, on a global scale with terrorists and jihadists and so forth. it's important that the administration restores the confidence to our
allies that we will not abandon the fight. neil: if he won't say radical islamists, let's say, you say words like we have to keep up the fight. it's very different coming from you than a president who is afraid to combine some of those words. like islamic terror. >> at this point strategic messaging is very important. because if we're not effective in controlling the narrative we're going to see that information battle space, if you will. part of that messaging may be certainly how we communicate with the president and down. it shows in our action in terms of us showing up to the unity march in paris just a couple of days ago. it also will show in terms of how we provide not only assistance, but our own capabilities in the conventional and special ops realm that the terrorists know we will not see that fight
and they will not have any sanctuary where they will equip to do us harm and our allies harm as well. neil: you think it's a matter of time before something of that scale, maybe paris, we're so fixated on 9/11, before that this kind of stuff, we're not really paying attention to? >> well, you know, we can't afford to -- we just can't take our eye off the ball. i think canada, australia, i think paris is a wake-up call for the american people. and i believe there's opportunities even in crises. in this opportunity, this is where the united states can continue to feel -- certainly fill the void where there may be lack of leadership. a lack of a coheerpt coherent approach of how we'll fight against terrorism. it may be time for us to call for a unified conference of some kind. these foreign fighters showing up in various places around the world. that we address this
issue, in terms of the free western world and the arab nations in support of us, how we will approach it in terms of information sharing, where these freedom fighters are able to travel and join up in the fight. neil: general, you make a lot of sense in a couple of minutes. more so than a lot of politicians i talk to in a couple of hours. thank you, sir, i appreciate it. al-qaeda is taking credit for the paris attack. but isis capitalizing online. trying to recruit and courage lone wolf attacks. teresa says that twitter and facebook should be doing a lot more to stop them. i never understand when these things happen is how they get up in the first place to spew this vile. >> it's interesting after an attack like this, they have a pattern of taking a victory lap on social media.
the good news is every single time they do that they leave digital tracks behind. are these social media platforms working with law enforcement to help prevent the next paris? neil: you know, this is the balance -- and we've gone into this before. you want to encourage free speech. for every, you know, nut who is going to bization going to be saying something threatening, you have tens of thousands millions of others who are making innocuous stuff of free speech. so the government cracks down and tells twitter what should or should not be on their sites there will be hell to pay from libertarians and others. what do you say in response to that? >> free speech is critical. we don't want to step on that. at the same time if we sit down and have these social media companies working with law enforcement, tracking down these digital tracks we're going to
be able to prevent the next paris. how do we have social media campaigns that rifle the fortune 500 companies. you can't do this in the back of the van. where are they getting the funding and resources for this infrastructure? neil: perish the thought, a lot of the talent putting up a website, so sophisticated they're clearly recruiting american graphic types, online types who know this stuff because that's just not born in the muslim world, you know? >> yeah. i think, again the happy medium that we can have is the social media companies sit down with law enforcement create a framework that works for everybody. protects privacy of good law-abiding citizens but at the same time give law enforcement the opportunity to follow up on these digital leads and tracks. neil: you're right. i apologize for that. teresa, very good seeing you. thank you. meanwhile, when uncle
neil: well, president obama in iowa making his pitch today. goes something like this: for those who want it, it's free. a dangerous government takeover is already happening right here in front of us. dave, what do you make of this. >> it's free just like health care and education. we've heard this story before. this is a federal power grab clear and simple by a president who believes the government can do everything better than the private sector. when has the federal government ever done anything better than the private sector, making
things cheaper or more efficient? there are a lot of states that have rules against city governments getting directly involved with competing with cable companies. the reason these rules exist is because governments always have an unfair advantage. they come in. we're getting involved so we can increase competition. when does that happen. when the government gets involved, there's less competition. that's why these states have these rules. the president wants to trump these rules. and get the fcc to come in and say, what the states have done is illegal. neil: i understand and share your loathsome view of the government. it's inconsistent. i can be in this county. these rules and these fees. next county i do business very different set of rules. should there be a more organized -- i don't want to use the term
universal -- way to do this. >> i thought of the word core. it all sounds nice in the planning stage neil. it's how it works out in reality that is the problem. and, again for this -- the federal government, president says, okay, this will increase the competitive advantage of small communities that don't have faster internet. that sounds good. when has the president ever been on top with competitive advantage? i think businesses are more on top than the president. forgive me president obama, that's my true belief. neil: i don't think he likes you even prior to this interview. >> i think he does. i wouldn't go that far. neil: do you see this as a power grab the internet could be a cash machine. the government wants in on it. right? >> this is not his first foray into the internet. he came out with this in november. i don't want to get involved with net
neutrality. but he wanted to get the fcc into regulating the internet as though it was a utility. that would involve price controls and everything that many people said would get the cutting edge -- the internet has succeeded wildly because it's been free. because it's been unfettered. vaccine >> i think only one person thinks that now. neil: thank you, dave. always a pleasure, my friend. so does the government really need to even be in the affordable internet business or the internet business itself? former verizon ceo danny says the private sector is already doing that. but here's the rub against that argument, though. if you think about it: the president is saying he's acting because some in the private sector are gouging internet users. what do you say? >> neil, first of all, let me say, i agree with everything that dave has just said. neil: careful. >> i mean it.
i think he was right on the money. i don't think anybody was being gouged. i built over 1,000 networks across the united states. i will tell you it's very difficult to do it cost-effectively. i think as recently as maybe six, 78 years ago, the city of philadelphia attempted to build a broadband wi-fi network. put it out to bid. the company bid on it. won the bid. spent 16 million building the network. at the end of the four years, they said to the city of philadelphia, we have to give this back to you. we can't make any money. we can't do this cost-effectively. the city of philadelphia said we can't take it back because we can't cover our costs. so competing with the likes of broadband companies, whether it's verizon, at&t comcast timewarner, it's very difficult to compete
with them. they've done this so many times over and over again. neil: they're the only guys in town. they're the guys that will charge you premiums for using more than your normal broadband data. and people have gotten used to not being charged extra for that. does the president make a case that gets support? >> no. the president does not make a case that gets support. here's where the president might focus his efforts along with the fcc: on places where no one is operating today to provide those networks. they're rare across the united states. but there are those places that perhaps some government subsidiaryization makes sense. other companies won't come in. neil: rural areas. >> and people should have access to the internet. no question about it. but to do this in -- either in competition -- and, by the way the carriers are not at all afraid of the
competition. there's -- it's -- neil: my carrier is not afraid of constantly billing me for it. now every other day it's time for another 50 gigabytes. i have no idea. >> that's what you use. neil: no. i liked it in the old days when i didn't to have pay for it. >> okay. i get that. everybody likes that. everybody likes that. neil: danny, thank you very much. 2016 already has critics whining and complaining that too many candidates are planning to jump into the presidential race here. why they should all just calm down and listen up. history proves there is nothing to worry about. we'll explain.
lose all that good will. the entrepreneur who says the former republican presidential nominee is a nerd. an entrepreneur calling essentially another a nerd. then there's another republican who says been there, done that. the folks at the left leaning channel have had a field day with the increasingly crowded field. me, because maybe i'm half italian, i know how routine heavy candidate turnout is back in italy, i don't have a lot of problem with a lot of guys showing up to win the brass ring. what's that they say about the lottery. you have to be in it to win it. in 1860, there was probably a lot of people that thought abraham lincoln's late entry into the contest made things confusing. let the pros sort this out. that eventually settled on the lanky order. a century later when rising star john kennedy
was then thought too young and inexperienced to threaten established party stars maybe like hubert humphrey or linda johnson. regardless all were sure losers to richard nixon. especially considering the popularity of nixon nixon's boss eisenhower. my only point of going back in history and mentioning these examples is that they upset the consensus which at the time ruled out the guy who eventually won out even winning out, in a crowd despite a crowd, over that crowd. so i say for republicans or democrats bring them along. all along. may the best man or woman win. but don't let experts died that. decide that. if i've learned anything about politicos that dismiss crowded fields they fail to see the folks that rise from
those crowded fields. maybe they're distracted. because they never saw lincoln coming or ronald reagan coming or dare i say bill clinton coming. all rose from supposed political dwarfs who supposedly didn't have a chance in hell until they did. because that's the thing about crowds, they have a way of whittling down. but no damage was done before they did. d.c. watcher kevin says competition ultimately does foster better candidates. i guess the question, kevin is that this notion that it's always suicidal when there are so many in the race. i just don't see it. >> i'm half italian. so i agree with you on that point. a lot of republican strategists that i talk to says they're concerned about such a crowded field simply because of these debates they had. you have to think back to the 2012 presidential debate. neil: way too many debates. >> twenty debates. that's more debates than
an nfl team plays in a season. so 20 debates and they're prone to clobber each other. it hurts the candidates when they could be focusing on the opposition. so the debate issue is i think, a common criticism that we hear about a crowded field. neil: well, don't have as many debates. i will agree with you that it's sometimes like beat up the leader of the moment. each one, have their 15 minutes of fame and attention. you know, that's fine. that shouldn't stop anyone -- and, by the way, debates get kind of goofy when so many are involved. a dozen republicans announced, i know fox will cover a few of them, they barely have enough time to say their names and then it's good night, i have never. i seenight, everyone. >> think about the contrast. if you have a crop of strong republican candidates who are competing against each other because that's what americans want to see. this is a hiring
decision. right? neil: you're right. >> voters want to hire the best man or woman for the job. think of the contrast between a competitive republican field versus on the left which some would say is the democrats gearing up for a coronation of hillary clinton. it would show the differences in the parties. but it would highlight some of the differences that many in the g.o.p. right now from capitol hill are trying to temper. that's the tea party against the centrist movement in the republican party. but i say bring it on. i'm a journalist. i'm not a strategist. i say bring it on. it will be fun to watch. neil: you raise a good point. i look at it and say eventually that field will get whittled down to one person. in 1992, that field bill clinton and the seven dwarves emerged around bill clinton. he had the enviable task of deseating a president
who had an 80 plus percent approval rating. a suicidal mission. it ended up not being so suicidal, you know. >> look at the democratic candidates in 2008. hillary clinton would have loved it if john edwards didn't run. neil: interesting point. the more the merrier. come on in. the water is fine. liberals jumped on mitt romney's 47% remark back then. but proof he's right today, after this.
him. who believe that they are victims. who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them. who believe they're entitled to health care, to food, to housing to you name it. neil: you think that will come back to haunt him? was he right about that 47% thing that 46% of americans have been on food stamps for a record of 38 months. thirty-eight months in a row. how many people are relying on the government and whether they all need that help. to the fox biz all-stars. jared levy. tracy byrnes. this is a sign that the economy can't be that great if this many are getting this benefit. right? >> 46 million people -- think about this, wages have not budged. if you adjust for inflation, you have 40 years where we're not earning any more as the average worker. then psychologically why do i want to go to work when the government will feed me and pay me and i
can sit on my butt. by teaching them that, to follow that behavior we're not bettering our behavior. economy, i think is a problem. approximate andand partly the way we taught many americans. i'm not from a wealthy family. i know what it's like to grow up -- neil: none of us here at this table would begrudge, you know, people who need this help getting this help, but 46 million surprises me. >> it's unbelievable. one out of every three households in america has at least one person in the household is on some sort of federal aid. one in three. so, of course, it's now been very normalized. none of us would begrudge someone getting a helping hand. i don't want to live in a society where we don't help someone who has stumbled and fallen. we have seen people on welfare have increased after the recession. neil: you can't argue and brag about a booming economy if you
have this booming food stamp food support government support data. >> the government has done its part to get more people under this umbrella. this is where, you know, people cry socialism. but it is -- it has decreased the standards. made it much easier for families to qualify. neil: when you say easier, the middle income levels have gone down. >> right. it's very easy to qualify these days. look at the earned income tax credit. once you make over a certain amount of money, you don't get five to $6,000 back. so why would i make more than that, when i get -- neil: you would want to keep under that threshold. >> between that and food stamps. unemployment, you know what, there's no incentive to try. once you get off the dole and try you're in dire straights. >> you're worse off. there's a disincentive to improve your condition.
you're better off making your situation worse and worse. >> i know jared wants to jump in, but it used to be embarrassing for food stamps. >> that's my point. >> it used to be embarrassing. >> yeah, i was talking to a friend about this. yeah, you know, i can go into the store. i have a debit card that the government puts money on. i can buy whatever i want. i don't have to be the guy with the food stamps. sometimes we need to humble ourselves and be embarrassed. it motivates you. that blew my mind. you should have food stamps. >> you could go buy a birthday cake with these things. there's no restriction on it. people are living large on food stamps. [laughter] neil: all right. now we all have crazy family members. do you know those crazies could make you crazy rich? jimmy's new fox business show explains how. she's here with an
neil: well tax from cradle to grave. uncle sam bringing in $18 billion in state taxes each year. if you're lucky a relative won't leave you a million dollars, they'll give you something that will make you millions of dollars. that is the story behind our show strange inhertance. 9:00 p.m. it's getting all the buzz. i've seen all of this stuff. it is phenomenal. this young lady phenomenal as well. >> oh, neil, how do i follow that? neil: it's not what you get. it's what you do. >> it's what you learn. i wanted to do a show. and i'll bet you that our boss roger rails, knew that as a
>> how much -- that's the worst of what we have in this world. we have a lot of gridlock in washington. isn't it time for some hope? neil: you're absolutely right. >> some help and some healing. that is strange inheritance. i wrestled that alligator. that one is named gucci. who do you think won that fight? that's roy's boys. neil: you kept the emancipation emancipation proclamation. i'll show it to you later. neil: it will stop you in your tracks. >> let me credit my crew. neil: never credit them. [laughter] they're sponges. they need it. >> if you don't get it,
>> so, you know, how you're doing it all. >> so you're saying, if you would have known what was ahead maybe you would have not have acquired better bernstein? >> i thought we would have had a contracted that protected us. but it had to be airtight. >> anything that you read secretary paulson was pretty much there saying this is how it's going down. and jamie -- i think jamie dimon will probably never say okay i'm jamie dimon, i'm here to help. so i think the government blew it. neil: now, being sued by the government. what do you make of all this? >> the relationship between the bank and the -- i'll bail you out and beat you up. if you look at -- neil: that's a brilliant analogy. i've heard the banking crisis worded many
things. but ike and tina turner. >> there's about $178 billion in penalties -- have been waived on these banks since the financial crisis. crisis revolving door of power. during the good times we penalize you. in the bad times -- neil: they suck you in. >> and those bad times they're in part caused by the very government. neil: jared, i want to raise this with you. tesla's stock was plummeting. -- tesla is a backwards ford in my mind. they indicator to the classes, not the masses. when ford was incorporated, they didn't really start making a big profit until the model t. they should get some
leeway. but i wouldn't be buying tesla right now. i think there is a little bit -- >> yeah, obviously. five years until they turn a profit. that's going to be a struggle. beyond that -- neil: his cars are beautiful. >> the guy is borderline genius. he's landing rockets on like a penny. neil: chicks dig that. >> yeah. every time. i have to tell you. >> the technology is phenomenal but i haven't yet seen where that technology has translated into actual positive tax line. at the end of the day, that's what matters. neil: don't get ahead of ourselves. all right. i'm going to be launching my rocket right now. a lot of you are worried about me. some even giving free medical advice. including, boil a pot of water and boil it over my head. really? after this.
neil: what is the deal with mitt romney thinking that the third time is a charm? you know, you guys are still talking about it. pj says no one wants mitt romney or jeb bush. just stop, you people are not picking the candidates again. what do you mean by you people? and carl says it's more than just money, everyone forgets about the conservative republican voters who didn't support mccain and romney. and they will not support any moderate republican no matter how bad the opposition this. and then there is jenny in new jersey. saying that a romney and carson to get would get my vote. and another says the reason why a romney lost last time is not because there were so many primaries, but that he had no clear message. and "charlie hebdo" is back and
1 million issued strong. right in the muslim space. donahue argued with me be careful how much is satire and how much you go after people. >> this guy who is the editor that was killed, he was obviously a stupid man. i'm making an explanation and not a justification. you cannot pretend to be virginal if it's okay for me to continually and seriously insult muslims with the most graphic things imaginable and then pretend they're going to not come after you. he needs to put restraint on himself, had he done that, he would not have been shot. neil: as he was speaking, e-mails were coming in. steven says i think that bill donohue is confusing moral censorship area and there must be a line of respect.
another individual says that he does not speak for catholics or american. it was not up to him to draw the line. and then charlene says i absolutely understand bill donohue's point expressed on your show and i agree with him. and then there's kevin who says that you cannot keep poking the tiger with a stick and then be surprised when it attacks you. michael of south carolina said that we should have the right to say and think and go anywhere and do anything we want without this. and then putting all this in perspective, caputo says just because we all have the right to speak our minds doesn't mean that you do when you sound like a kid going through puberty when you do. shut up and stay home, see a doctor, the sound of you gets on my nerves, which is why i came in today. because i know about this. and if you can't talk go get well because your voice is
annoying. and rob in new mexico says what is the deal with you not getting well. and stay home and get well, please. and come on take some time off. then i heard you were coming back. pete says get yourself some hot water or tea and put some cinnamon in it and drink it down certificate for your show. and kelly in new york city says now you sound like you're incoherent and idiotic. and then pour a gallon of oiling water and it must be boiling. repeat liberally.
>> let me know what you think. great good night weekend. kennedy: freedom, you created it and they hate it. and why are they so hell-bent on destroying your most basic right of freedom? we are counting down the enemies of freedom. we started with michael bloomberg and we have taken down lois lerner and dick cheney we have the top 10 freedom loathers join us as we count down those who wrapped up regulations and lines. know your enemies, this is "the independents"