>> like the pal bearer. >> pall bearer! >> i love it. heat is on as house lawmakers return to their districts. forces on both sides of this iran nuke deal planning major operations to pressure lawmakers to their side. and look who's coming out strong for the left. >> we've got a deal on the table that keeps us all safe. >> do me a favor, okay? don't let some hot-headed member of congress screw that up. >> because playing politics with our national security is actually not all that funny. >> call congress. tell them. support diplomacy. it's the only sane solution.

>> if you've got to turn to hollywood to sell this deal, is it a bad deal? i'm brenda buttner. this is "bulls & bears." gary b. smith, jonas max faris, john layfield, along with lisa boothe and jim green. hello, everybody. we saw celebs turn out in droves for the health care, now for the iran deal. what does that mean? >> i think this deal was in trouble. it didn't work out because obamacare is as unpopular as ever. i don't know about you but i'm sick and tired of liberals in hollywood trivializing big issues. a nuclear iran is no laughing matter and that's what we could potentially have. iran is the most active state sponsor of terrorism. they've worked with their enemies to kill americans and our allies. they're puppeteering and funding terrorism across the globe. >> do you have a problem with

hollywood jumping in on this one? >> why would i have a problem with an american speaking their mind? look, brenda, on one hand, we have a deal based on strong diplomacy. on the other handle, we have the possibility of war. when jeb black, a great comedian, says it's not a laughing matter, we can't play politics with this deal, i take his opinion over the comedians, some of them clowns, that have take nl over congress. >> gary b., there are two sides to this story. but hollywood does car ray lot of heft with people. what do you think of this commercial and the point they're making and it it means to this fight? >> a couple thing, brenda. one is i like how, you know, jehmu and the left always say we're happy to have anyone speak up, but when the right speaks up with very valid points they're

always hot heads or they're crazy. as if just bringing up alternate debate points is somehow nuts. this whole thing boils down to do we trust iran or not. listen, if everything comes true and iran behaves perfectly, this is going to be the greatest deal in the world. but we know that's not going to be the case for many of the points that lisa pointed out. the other thing i think is important is israel is dead set against it. israel is one of our staunchest allies, has been for, my gosh, almost 70 years now. since the state of israel was created and first recognized by the united states. so we're turning our back on our best, staunchest, most loyal ally who hates this deal in support of iran? it just doesn't make any sense. >> john, the israeli lobby is lobbying very hard on this issue on lawmakers. it's really an all-out assault

on both side. isn't this just the way that washington works? hollywood's just trying to get their side? >> obviously, hollywood tends to be liberal and they have the right to speak out like jehmu said like any other americans. but this isn't just about diplomacy. this is a bad deal. that's my opinion. you look at the facts. iran has 27% inflation according to the iranian central bank. that's the highest on record. most people think it's closer to 50%. the reality, iranian currency has devalued over 80% since 2011. they have oil sitting in tankers because they can't get it insured through the e.u. because of the sanctions, sitting there unable to sell it. they have double-digit unemployment. when you're talking about going from that to making them possibly one of the richest countries in the world over $150 billion is going to go into this country, you're going to tell those businesses in a couple years if they break these rules that you now are going to lose those billions of dollars? that's absolutely impossible. it took decades to get them to

this point where they had to come to the negotiaie negotiati. now they're deck tating the terps. in ten years they'll be flush with cash, have a military and they'll have a nuclear bomb. >> the point hollywood but making is the we don't do this deal there's going to be an arm ras i in the middle east and that will mean a conventional war and the u.s. will get involved. what do you think about that? >> i don't think that's that outlandish. this isn't like a sean penn video trying to make a decent status out of iran. they're just trying to wake up younger voters primarily to get involved and at least back something. i don't think that is going to work ultimately because i think where the celebrities have more power is in fund-raising. you can pretty much buy these congressmen. this could have been a politically neutral thing that could have given money to congress, they could have fund-raisers for them, all of a sudden votes happen, it doesn't become a public issue like this could become. these won't tilt the boat in one direction or another. i think the way to do it is to keep it not political by, oh,

the liberals -- hollywood's got to be on this side. people that would have had no opinion on iran. you could have spun a story that north korea we had sanctions on when they started getting nukes, they're still getting nukes. this is a different strategy. they stay more politically neutral like that. i don't think hollywood is helping. >> gary b., you're practically jumping out of your seat. >> well, yeah, because i think in this case, in many cases, to be honest with you, i disagree with jonas. i think sanctions were working for all the reasons that john pointed out. they're crippling country for better or worse, bending them to our will, to the right way, and now we're basically handing them a whole new gdp. we're making them rich and saying we're going to do all that because we trust you. does anyone think that is a sane solution? >> jehmu? >> well, i would love to hear some solutions from the right instead of just downplaying the

enormous amount of progress we have made. that choke hold, john, i'm sure you will understand that, that choke hold we have on iran right now is because of the same people who have now negotiated that deal. i put my money on their approach to this over people who are -- >> you would rather -- >> -- in this conversation to say no to anything that this president does. that's not reasonable and in the best interests globally. >> what you're advocating is to give iran $150 billion, as we mentioned, unfreeze those atsz ets and allow iran, who is already puppeteering and funding terrorism across the globe, more money to do that. essentially what this deal does is not only freezes those as its, it has -- >> what are you advocating for? what are you advocating for? >> it does nothing to prevent -- >> i'm advocating for peace. >> please. >> i'm advocating for peace. >> you're advocating for

essentially handing over a nuclear weapon to iran and whose supreme leader just said death to america. >> ridiculous. >> it's not ridiculous. it's the truth. >> jonas, democrats are planning fewer town halls in this next recess. i think that may mean they don't want to hear from the people on this. what do you think? >> i think to my point is the quiet way, the way through with this, the more the public gets involved the more you'll get people on political side. what jehmu said, the only thing that wasn't outrageous is jeb black is a great comic. but the hollywood thing is not the way to get this through and it backfired. >> john? >> jehmu, we're all advocating for peace, believe it or not, i certainly am. we disagree on how to get there. these sanctions did not start with the current administration. they start in 1979. they've built on that for decades. there are a couple of assumptions that are wrong in this tape made by the hollywood

stars. the fact that a bad deal is better than no deal, that is simply not true, and that a war is iminnocent if that deal does not go through, that is simply not true. iran does not want a war. they have to deal with saudi arabia and with israel. so that is not taken for granted. that is a fear mongering tactic used by negotiators trying to get public opinion on their side to sway for this deal saying we need a bad deal, better than no deal. that is not true. >> thanks, guys. that's got to be the last word. "cavuto on business" in about 20 minutes. what have you got? we've seen the disturbing videos. should planned parenthood lu its stash of taxpayer dollars? and hillary clinton refusing to back down on the keystone pipeline. you want an answer? she says get in line. see you at the bottom of the hour. >> you will. can't wait. up here first, to the big labor backlash as cities hike the minimum wage, some of the same unions that demanded it now want an exemption from it. should they be

can a business have a mind? a subconscious. a knack for predicting the future. reflexes faster than the speed of thought. can a business have a spirit? can a business have a soul? can a business be...alive?

auld owe message vowing to continue the insurgency. i'm uma pemmaraju. back to "bulls & bears." first the unions fighter pit. now they don't want to pay it. the los angeles city council is set to vote as early as next week on giving unions an exemption from the city's new $15 an hour minimum wage mandate. gary b., you say this is proof this is all about unions trying to lift their numbers, not workers' pay. how so? >> absolutely, brenda.

it's a brilliant strategy, i must say that to the unions. i would want to join a union because i would want to join a union it gets to the whole point of why they can and will maximize their numbers. look, if the alternative out there is an organization that can have the most flexibility in demanding wages and yet be the low-cost alternative, unions are in. now they can say, look, we're going to bargain for the maximum market wage and if you want to pay us $14 an hour versus those stiffs out there who are stuck with the minimum wage of $15 an hour, hey, we tear union. i'll tell you what, if i went to a company, i would want to now work for the union because they are in the past position to maximize their gains and for their people to keep jobs. it's brilliant. it's awful. of course we should have expected this. but those are the facts. >> isn't it, jehmu, also hypocritical? first they fight for it, they want workers to have $15 an hour minimum wage, then they don't want it for their own members.

>> perhaps one person's hypocrisy is another person's strategy. i don't know. to gary's point, unions have always been in the best position to provide quality jobs, so i don't know, when you're looking far job -- >> you mean like in the auto companies? >> when you're faced with i'm going to get $10 an hour, i'm going to get a job with $10 an hour, health care, benefits, remember, weekends, they did that. 40-hour workweek. they built that. so whatever strategy they need to employ against the tyranny against them over the last few decades, amen. bow down as beyonce would say. >> very relevant in the '30s, jehmu, i'll you that. >> john, workers have not been joining unions. their numbers have been plummeting. is this a strategy to get more union workers? they may not pay them as much as for other workers.

>> yes, brenda. tyranny, really? there's tyranny out there. maybe hypocrisy is actually hypocrisy. maybe it's not one person's. maybe it's just hypocrisy. we have to define what "is" is with unions now. they wanted a $15 minimum wage. i think min mip should be fixed. that's a separate issue. but unit i don't wants wanted this and once they got it they said, wait a minute, this will hurt jobs. this is a way as gary b. says for us to get more union members. they wanted wage for union guys. if they were really helping the worker, the actual worker, those that are fighting against the tyranny, the evil empire, they would want them to have $15 an hour. this is so transparent. >> okay, jonas. this is about more than just wages, though. it's about benefits too. >> it is. this brings up an interesting thing that's been going on for a few decades. this is what's killing unions. democrats have killed the unions by providing the benefits by law that didn't exist back when you

could have child labor laws. this a that's when you needed unions. it provides an artificially high wage above the market rate and ben if i wants you probably wouldn't have negotiate on your own. when you have obamacare providing health care you probably wouldn't have gotten with your job and a really high artificially high minimum wage, what's the point of a union? they phase out the need of the union. if these benefits continue across all the states unions are going to go the way of nothing. because what are they going to get you beyond that? imagine if we had a $30 minimum wage, they're not going to get you a pay rate higher than that. they can't negotiate a health benefit you already have from obamacare. it's nostalgic. we don't need it anymore because of these policies. >> lisa, could you weigh in now? >> look, i think this is a justification for what republicans have said all along. we said if you increased the minimum wage to something like $15 it's going to be a deterrent for businesses and it's absolutely going to be a job killer. i think what these unions are realizing is that businesses aren't going to want to pay that

$15. so when you take it off the table and say, we'll take less, they know businesses are going to be more apt to allow them to unionize. what this is is a justification that republicans were absolutely right in their criticism of the minimum wage. >> jehmu? >> and so what? they are going to succeed in getting an increase to the minimum wage. >> but not for their own members. >> also making sure they survive. at the end of the day, i would love it for unions to be phased out. i would love it for businesses to say we are more productive than ever before because of our workers so we're going to pay them. but until then, you go for it because that is what is necessary in this climate. profits are not shared with workers. >> gary b., 15 seconds. >> first of all, i want to say jonas' analysis in all truth was brilliant. we're lucky to have him on the show. the other thing, if unions are

so great why have they been on a decline in membership for the last hundred years? >> exactly. >> we're lucky to have all of you here. "cashin' in" just over an hour from now. eric, what do you guys have coming up? >> hi, brenda. the one, the only donald trump on "cashin' in." the gop front-runner piping in on everything from how he would make mexico pay for a border wall to what he has planned for next week's debate. the donald like you've never seen him before. 11:30 eastern. >> sound great, eric. we'll be there. up here first, the pledge. up here first, the pledge. one gop presidential candidate

♪ ♪ ♪ get excited for the 1989 world tour with exclusive behind the scenes footage, all of taylor swift's music videos, interviews, and more. xfinity is the destination for all things taylor swift.

instead of voting them out, how about kicking them out? a new pledge drive to put an end to career politicians in congress is gaining steam and just gained a big endorsement this week from gop presidential candidate ben carson. john, you say this would also save us all money. >> it would save a ton of money. once they take a five-week vacation while the rest of america works, how about they then all quit? that would save us even more money. since that's not going to happen, this idea makes sense because if they're not running for election, you won't see as much pork, essentially stealing from the american people, or election spinning. this is bipartisan. this system does not work. the majority of people in congress right now are bought and paid for by big business and it is simply not working. term limits would save us a ton of money and aggravation. >> jonas, isn't our right to

vote basically we can give term limits if we choose to? >> i agree with those points but the term limit thing, it seems like a good idea but we don't have term limits for ceos. they get fired when they start doing a bad job. it's not like hiring kings. we have to win again. i know some of them get elected over and over but at the end of the day that's your power over them. i will say to the wasting money and taking favors they should say if you've already been in office you shouldn't get to run a full election, waste half your time going around raising money. run your record and go to debates and that's it. >> a lot to get in here. gary b., what would the founders think of this? >> they would hate it. john adams thought a citizen should be, you know, come up from the population, serve his time, and then go back and work under the laws that he or she put together, normally back then a he. that's how it is. the reason ceos get fired is because off board of directors looking over their shoulder knowing what the ceo does every day. the general population out there doesn't know even who their senator or representative is and

that's why 94% of representatives get re-elected and 83% of the senators. if congress was working i'd be all for it but 16% of approval rating i agree with john. >> jehmu, 20 seconds. >> i've always wrapped my head around the intellectual argument that we can vote them out, but the insanity of late, i don't know. i can see why people would em benchmark rate term limits. the founding fathers would run some of these fools through with their bayonets. >> lisa, last word. >> i support term limits but it's easier for someone like ben carson who's not running for congress. 75% of americans support term limits. i say give house members three terms, senate two terms and, you know, i think that would -- it's a good thing. >> and this will likely be one of the many hot issues of the first 2016 presidential debate right here on fox this thursday starting at 5:00 p.m. eastern. don't miss it.

thank you,isa and jehmu for joining us. we appreciate it. >> thank you. whiskey in space. what a concept. it's for real and it could bring you real profits that are out of this world. we live in a world of mobile technology, but it is not the device that is mobile, it is you.

predictions. gary b. >> who will die on "house of card" this year? the gossip has started. it will drive netflix up another

30% in a year. >> john, your prediction. >> talk about driving the ride share phenomenon, i think penske, people in cars longer i own it up 20% in a year. >> jonas? >> japan satori is making it better for a whole country. >> where is your prop? neil is next. half a billion bucks for this? >> if you think it is tough listening to that, just be grateful i didn't show you that. the part on these now infamous tapes showing planned parenthood workers sifting through disposed fetus organs and tissue cards in a pie dish as if a takeout order from a chinese restaurant. but reduced now to bargaining chits on a table, open to the highest bidder. let's just say taxing. and for those pro-life and pro-choice alike, many wondering