two names to get you going. charles. >> whirlpool by one or two shares anytime you get a chance. >> adam. >> hedj, a currency hedged european fund. >> thank you very much. david asman right now. he served the united states with honor and distinction and we'll have the opportunity eventually to learn what that is tran sierd in the past years. >> that was then and now we have learned. army sergeant bowe bergdahl is being charged with desertion. ten months after being swapped by the administration for five senior taliban members held in ga want tan know bay. three of those five already trying to rejoin the terror fight. is this more proof that the o cost of closing gitmo is greater than putting it open. let's go in focus to find out with steve forbes, rich carl guard elizabeth mcdonald make

owe ozanian and bruce. what do you think, the cost of closing more than the cost of keeping it open? >> david, you never close a pow camp until you win the war. we know from past experience when you release these people many of them do go back to trying to fight against us in this war on terror. so this is blood on the ground, innocent lives are being put in jeopardy and in terms of that swap that was disproportionate. usually like during the civil war you have a certain number, you swap for a certain physical. totally asymmetrical as they say, totally disproportionate and innocent people are going to pay their lives for it. >> bruce to steve's point 30% of those released are either confirmed or suspected of reengaging in terror. that's a big number. >> well, my problem with this whole gitmo situation is that it was created on the myth that the u.s. judicial system couldn't andel prisoners in the war on terror and i think it reminds

people -- if it reminds me of torture and that whole bad chapter in the bush cheney era i can only imagine what they're doing to use it, you know torques to recruit terrorists around the world. i say we say good-bye to this whole thing and get rid of the gitmo and close it down once and for all. >> rich, the point is here to these terrorists who are caught on the battlefield in the war of terror, did they deserve the benefits of our jaw tishl system? >> not when you have an eric holder led justice department. i have no faith in the civil justice department under this regime. by the way, president obama said just within the week that his biggest regret about his first term is that he didn't close gitmo on day one. i rather gray with senator tom cotton who recently visited gitmo o who said the only problem with gitmo is that it isn't run to full capacity. >> john, i never know how you

feel about these things because you're a libertarian on a lot of issues. what do you think about gitmo? >> i think if gitmo keeps us more safe let's keep it open. i think very often the war on terror has taken us to places that's actually made us less safe, but in this case if it keeps people who mean us harm from reaching the united states, you keep it it open. i don't care what the rest of the world thinks, the only consideration has to be if there are less terrorists in the united states you keep it open. >> emac, there is a question also of whether there's a game plan of the administration to try to bleed all the terrorists out of gauantanamo so that it wouldn't function anymore. the state department had an envoy for gitmo's closure to spoke to this point, he said, the first step in closing gitmo is to transfer all of those who can be approved for transfer and then you're going to be left with a small core and at that point the case for doing so when it's very small down to a very small core will be overwhelming.

emac what do you think? >> and then the terrorists will declare mission accomplished, our war on you is over and we'll all be in candy land. listen, this is a very long war the terrorists have declared. they can not be in our justice system because they will recruit more terrorists in our justice system and our justice system routinely let's people go that should not be let go. listen, if if they don't want to be in a pow camp had they should not declare war on o the united states and if we let them go is it morally superior to hit them with a drone camp? >> for all of bruce concerned about what he calls for tour is that worse than people getting killed? and also we should mention by the way, not that it matters, but the american people want gitmo to stay open according to recent polls. >> well, i certainly would not close gitmo while obama is president, david. he is indifferent to the threat that the state of islam poses to america therefore he's indifferent to where these

detainees would be released. i think it would threaten our security. this administration has lied to us before about terror, lied to us about how yemen had become secure, lied to us about what happened at benghazi. i wouldn't trust them with gitmo. >> steve what about this plan that come seem have spoken about the administration has of actual draining slowly -- we've gone from 600 plus prisoners at gitmo down to 160. they say below -- 800, thank you, bruce. they say blow 60 and it wouldn't be economically fees able anymore. >> that goes to the whole thing. obama treats this war on terror like unrule wree street gangs and they shouldn't be if our justice system. you it didn't have in world war ii prisoners of war in our justice system. they are pow's. if you don't want them to be in gitmo don't fight against us, very simple. it is going to cost lives. but he's -- just doesn't seem to get it. >> bruce what about the point that i made to rich, our civil judicial system has all these guarantees, you get the lawyer up to your heart's content, you

get the plead the fifth and do all sports sorts of things that on the battlefield, people taken off a battlefield are not allowed to do. do these terrorists responsible for hundreds if not thousands of deaths deserve all those advantages as the civil justice system? >> well, i think that they deserve some. i mean, there was a guy -- >> why? just a simple question. why do they deserve some? >> okay. how do we want to be treated as prisoners of war? there are people in this -- >> we know how we're treated. our heads are cut off. we're burned to death. that's how we're treated. >> i get it. but 14 years there was a guy who was -- there was a guy who was in there for 14 years who was never charged. you can come up with a charge. charge these people. i mean, don't -- >> but, bruce that's changed. wait a minute. you're talking about old cases. it's changed now. they have habeas corpus, they can go to a trial down there.

the administration is putting ideology over security as the president rushes out the door to meet a campaign promise that he can't meet. >> hold on. john -- hold on, bruce. there's one point that you make that i actually agree with and i will ask john about that. why not just declare war? why not have a clear declaration of war? if if we have a declaration of war all of these issues go away because these are approximate pows. there would be no question about them getting a civil trial. >> absolutely. we make it so sees wree on congress, commit troops but don't have anything behind it. and that's my problem with these wars going back realistically to vietnam. we want to be at war, but we don't want to then commit ourselves to it and so we go halfway in we have all sorts of rules of en fwanl: if we are going to be at war and commit troops then protect those troops' lives and protect america. >> that makes sense to me i saw you shaking your head. go ahead. >> i think john and bruce are

for getting possibly that they have declared war on us. i don't know how they could be any clearer when they vow the destruction of the united states and then join groups that vow the destruction of the united states and then try to carry it out. >> but, steve why not just make it official? why not have a declaration of war? >> declaration of war against whom? you've got numerous guys out there. >> let's start with isis. >> you've got an on going list. you've got iran, are you going to declare war on them. >> no iran is our new friends. >> this gets the whole thing -- the u.s. by the way, has fought numerous scores of small wars that we never declared war on. so the key thing is let's not get caught up on that kind of thing. we've declared war on us, these are pows and that's different from the civil justice department. >> last word from steve forbes. thank you very much. forget house of wards cards. did we just get roof that the real washington, d.c. is trying to choke off its political enemies? >> when i went into my bank to

open a bank account i was told shortly thereafter thatt.

i will see you at 2:30 eastern with heather childers. now back to "forbes on fox." >> like the irs i father that activists at the doj and the approximate fidc are abusing their power and authority and are going after legal businesses and in effect they're weapon eyesing government to keep their ideological beliefs. >> weapon eyesing the government. strong words from republican congressman shawn duffy, how he describes operation choke point. this is a justice tept program meant to choke out access to banking services to those firms considered high risk for financial fraud. but, mike, you agree with the congress pan that it was used to go after political enemies. >> absolutely david. duffy is 100% correct. this is another abuse of power by our lawless president. if he feels these businesses have ton something wrong they should be put in front of a judge and jury. the president should not be con scripting banks to go after people he doesn't like.

>> look at the average americans, the folks that are caught in the middle of all this. play the tape. >> my credit union called me and told me that i had to come in and close my account because i deal with in guns. >> i received a letter from my bank that my bank account would be shut down in 30 days for high risk reasons, which no one could seem to explain to me. >> these are good americans, small businesspeople. >> well, the idea that -- when this was created it was supposed to go after banks and third party processors who throughout the law and that's what we should be doing here. what this has done is it's given the payday lending lobby a cover with these clips to confuse the issue about what this was intended to do. i think that that's unfortunate. >> well so much, emac, of what the government intends to do turns in -- particularly with this administration and attacks on their political enemies. >> i'm wondering where is

operation choke point for all the bankrupt green energy companies. >> that's a good question. >> that the u.s. taxpayers subsidized. this is about attacking politically unpopular tax paying businesses and instead of case-by-case basis they just an thet clee said let's go after the whole sector. when has the fidc allowed to do economic sanctions. this is so outrage yous. >> this is a pattern for the th administration. look at all the federal agencies used to go after people considered -- people or businesses considered to be on the wrong side from the administration, the fidc justice operation choke point irs goes after the conservative non profits, epa growing after cole and the atf, it goes on and on. >> it it is a pattern of lawlessness as mike pointed out. this administration makes up the law as it goes and when they get caught says, we didn't know that, we learned it from the newspapers and then they promise corrective action which is never

taken. the abuse of the irs, going after at any time people, hiring rogue agents and the like targeting conservatives it just goes on and on. >> john as usual has an answer and as usual it comes out of his libertarian lay book. just close down the fidc, right? >> this is the inevitable result of government getting too close to banks, it's obviously weakened banks and politicized how they take deposits and everything and the easy saen is to close down the fidc. if you were to do that there would be private insurance companies a day later insuring deposits it would be the most seamless transition. get government out of this you it fix it. >> i love the simplicity of that solution. do you think it would work? >> yeah, i agree about 90% with john, but let's -- you know here is the impact, is in the economic recovery since the recession ended is large basis hult nationals that are globally

competitive have is done well and small businesses which are the kind of people who have been targeted by the fidc have not done so well. now you have a reason why. >> perfect, perfect explanation. mike, that is was wrong with our system right now, the big folk with powerful lobbyists and lawyers and accountant they get away with all this stuff, it's the spall sized businesses that are getting caught between the cross hairs here. >> even more to the point, david, is the fact that it's up to the president to decide who gets a pass and who doesn't. when you have a lawless president who has nothing but contempt for the constitution, you're going to get an abuse of power whether you shut down the fidc, you're still going to have other agencies that are open. he wields his power. these people can't fight the government in court like rich points out. they don't have the money. >> bruce, doesn't that bother you? journalists are supposed to take care of those who don't have power. >> well, certainly a lobbyists bug me but we need some kind of

safeguards for the people who have been vikt highsed by his exorbitant -- you've read stories of 500% interest rates from these payday lenders. there need to be some safeguards. i'm not exactly sure what it is but by need to have some safeguards for these people. >> emac. >> listen, separate from all that, the attitude here, watch this, they were guilty until proven innocent just like the irs treats taxpayers. even as they were legitimate tax paying businesses. >> i look at this list of government agencies the irs, fidc, the epa, the nlrb maybe it would be good to get rid of them all. >> yes. we're going to have to wait, though, until 2017 is when we get a new president who actually respects the law. that will be a revelation revolution. >> all right. that's got to be it for this segment. "cashin' in" gang getting ready to roll at the bottom of the hour eric what do you got? >> we've have the latest on what investigationers are calling the deliberate plane crash in the alps, there may be a solution to

prevent this from happening again. plus, a lawmaker paid with tax dollars says he's more threatened by police than isis? what? see you at 11:30. >> up here first, ted cruz touting a flat tax while announcing his run for the white house but mike huckabee says a sales tax is the way to go. we know what steve forbes thinks, but what about his employees, they debate, you decide.

@? is is the only way

that we can limit what we give to the government each year. secondly, i think it's very unamerican that we have to prove to the people whose salaries we pay what we make. do a sales tax. >> rich, milton freed man the great economist -- the great economist said he didn't like the sales tax or what he would call the value added tax because it worked too well it was too effective for government's it this collecting money. we didn't like that. plus they could raise it very easily. >> yeah that's its problems. it's always going to be tinkered with. the great thing about a flat tax

is you've got a national consensus, everybody is treated the same way and i would just go, steve, one step further. i would apply not only the income but capital gains, corporate income and inheritance taxes to make it it overwhelmingly fair and treat everybody the same. >> emac rand paul, senator rand paul who is also running, he's going to throw his hat in the ring pretty soon, he said you could use a flat tax on a way to transition to a sales tax. is that a nice compromise? >> no, it wouldn't work. taxes upon taxes worse than any kind of wedding cake you saw at a big family. listen, it's so easy to ratchet it up to 40%, you could hit services with the national sales tax, too. while exempting local governments as well. i like the irs is too intrusive, but the flat tax could reduce that. >> flat tax i just want one time, david, one time to be able to fill my taxes out on a postcard sized piece of paper and send it in. >> yeah. no deductions, none of the long

form stuff, no paying out to the attorneys and the legal costs. thank you very much, for example. sounds good to me. coming up workers average hourly earnings slipping last month, but that is about to change with o o o o o

to our informers' picks to help you earn for. emac, you've got another fund. >> vanguard mid cap value etf, has low volatility, it's cheap and has a sweet dividend yield. >> do you like this collection of stocks. >> one of their biggest holdings is whirlpool and pie in-laws brought a whirlpool washer and it broke in tliek two years. >> carlisle group, why do you like thaem them. >> smart group of investors that invest a lot of money across a

lot of industries. it's near its 52-week low. >> piggyback on east mark. >> it's near that low because it may runway on energy. >> for "forbes on fox." thanks for watching. the number one business block continues with eric bolling and "cashin' in." >> he crashed the plane on approximate purpose. the co-pilot flew the airline into a mountain after locking the captain out of the cockpit. could paying for mandatory psychological testing help prevent other pilots from committing mass murder? i'm eric bolling well tomorrow to "cashin' in." wayne rogers, ontan hoe anything, lisa booth and juan williams. i want to talk about this 150 dead and they say it was a deliberate act. is it time to start requiring who are testing for pilots? >> i think you have some testing initially. lufthansa said that they had done a psychological test they want people who are not only cooperative, but reliable. the problem is they stopped. they don't do it once you're a