ely. callaway up 50% in the year. >> four john. >> technology is one of those. 20% in a year. >> people spend over 3,000 just getting to work. luckily -- reetoyota, 50% in a . >> stop, rewind and translate. charles is now. isil had a large cad reof western fighters who could potentially serve as operatives for attacks in the west and the group is probably exploring a variety of means for infiltrating operatives into the west. in the wake of the orlando massacre a new warning about lone wolf attacks. this week cia director john brennan telling congress isis could be infiltrating groups of refuges, just as we are speeding up efforts to bring in more.

so is it time to pause a refuge program? dai can we afford to even take in more of these refuges? >> well we can afford it in the sense we've got the money for it. but what is the point? we know a lot of attacks in this country have come from refuges by people influenced by refuges or people who have relatives by refuges or radicalized by refuges. what is the point of bringing them in? the logical cal consequence of these actions by mr. obama is to bring in more terror. why does he want do it? >> well we should know and since the orlando massacre, 441 more syrians were imported into the country. the second largest destination was florida. you think this is something

worth while that it is part of the american creed if you will. >> immigration is in fact charles but the government's role is to keep us safe. and you know there have been a million refugees and immigrants from muslim majority countries just under the president's watch. i don't know if that is keeping us safe. but i co-think it is a bit of a red herring. as long as these militant slaumist ideas remain undiscredited whether it is nightclubs or holiday parties or refuges or immigrants or home grown terrorists, we remain at war and militant islam remains a threat. until the ideas are gone, we are going to be at war and we are going to be unsafe. >> the bottom line is ever since muhamed died without a concession plan there's only been turmoil. it only gets worse and doesn't get better. >> and torn about the midwest and cost us so much. i agree with jonathan.

>> middle east. >> i was born in the mid west. >> yeah we understand don't worry about it. >> blah blah blah. blah blah blah. you end up harming the economic engine of this country when you have so much fomite about any sort of placement. think about the millions in syria who had their lives turned upside down and country torn apart. i this i we should be leaning on allies to take more of these people and also the government needs to be more transparent about the vetting process and wes need to also acknowledge this is not our government that keeps us safe. so -- americans have to be able to protect themselves if the government is not going to do it for them. >> that conversation is also coupled with the conversation from president obama that hey, the syrian refuges aren't the ones committing these haines crimes here. americans, people born in

america and they have a vetting process that lasts 18-24 months and so far that particular program with those particular syrians has a pretty good track record. that is what they will tell you. >> if you look at it from that very narrow context, yes. but we know that terrorism is a much wider context. and, you know, the san bernardino shooters. >> the refuges themselves. should we stop refuges -- if it is americans committing these crimes. >> there is a wider context where these folks are being radicalized by people like the syrian refugees or people being embedded with them. we are at war with islam right now. or they are at war with us. they started it and they keep it going. to essentially accept people that come from that part of the world -- and this is not a muslim ban. that is part of the world. >> is it islam or just certain portions of islam. >> they are war with us. no doubt about it. >> -- islam.

>> no no, i'm not calling for a muslim ban. but that part of the world i'm telling you is at war with us. >> adam? >> you are being imprecise charlie and you are being imprecise and ben in a way that is really dangerous. let me try to state it clearly. it is un-american to have a conversation about banning certain types of people from entering the country because of who they are. -- >> one at a time. >> adam with great respect you are all wrong. with all due respect. >> hundred percent. >> historically that is wrong, adam. we have been able to -- >> i don't think we've ever band an entire religion but we've certainly banned people from certain countries. >> why would you not ban nazis by the way? >> the president already has

statutory authority to ban any group of immigrants he deems dangerous or undesirable. that's been used many times in the history of the united states. the president has that authority. >> one second guys. let me bring adam back in. he was cutoff. adam one point i want to make, not only do we have the people who were worried about it but president obama is speeding up this program. he's got this magic number. 10,000. he wants to bring them in. we're approaching one million under his watch and people feel that it is extraordinarily unsafe. this is something the polls high by the way on both sides of the aisle. >> you are mixing data points with what you are saying. a million immigrants from muslim dominated countries -- >> parts of the world. >> yeah. and those tiny number of syrian refuges we just frashd on screen. >> -- [inaudible]. >> let him finish.

>> we passed laws against chinese people coming into the united states. we prevented japanese -- we put japanese americans in prison camps and we agreed that this wasn't the right policy. >> adam, you are conflating a couple of things here. jonathan i'll bring you in on this. listen, i've heard you speak about this. and you are an extraordinarily compassionate person. by the same token t level of risk. we all weigh risk and reward. no matter what we do. and the level of risk is so high most americans think hey we should pause button. instead t president obama is speeding up the program. >> it is not government's role to resettle refugees and certainly not from muslim majority countries at a time of wash. but i got to tell you, bringing in refuges are not -- i almost they coin a phrase, what difference does it make? it is not like we won world war ii by expertly screen iing militants from the germany.

we had to win the war of ideas. >> we did screen people from -- >> but that is not how we won -- >> of course not but we don't want spies coming this our country. >> good point and in this prar case because of the nature of the internet and some other things playing such a role in there, it is hard to control the message. but people on the other side are saying the idea of banning an entire religion is where they think it is a mistake. maybe focus on these war torn area a syria and a iraq or something like that. >> there is certainly cause for focus and the president does have to be more transparent. because, you know, if the idea is that the fbi is stretched so thin that they couldn't possibly deal with someone that they had interviewed three times who had been flagged by former law enforcement, current coworkers and a gun shop, then how can we possible expect nem to help carry out this vetting process? and what is it about jordan that

magically allows this process to go from 18 months to 3 weeks? again, i agree with jonathan that the overreliance on government is what's causing all this problem. the solution is not more government. >> be real clear. that was not because the fbi was stretched thin. the reason we didn't get this guy was pure and simple political correctness. they thought he was being bullied by his workers for being muslim and they backed off. >> exactly right. >> not exactly right. >> -- [inaudible]. >> the bottom line though ultimately is that we do have more refugees come in at time when the american public is saying please put a pause on it. the food police are back at it. ththis time in philly. the first major u.s. city with a soda tax. someone says watch out because get thirsty for a lot more. get thirsty for a lot more.

boy: this is the story of a boy who didn't talk for a long time. the boy liked things to always be the same. any changes would scare and upset him. the unknown was an unfriendly place. the boy was very sensitive to lights and sounds. so he built secret hiding places where they couldn't get in. the boy didn't like looking people in the eye. he wasn't trying to be mean, it just made him feel uncomfortable. sometimes he would flap his arms again and again. second boy: one day, i found out i had something called autism. my family got me help. slowly i found my voice and learned all the ways i could live with it better. announcer: early intervention can make a lifetime of difference. learn the signs at autismspeaks.org.

uruguay but officials believe he may have slichd out of the country somewhere near the border. now back to kcavuto on business well, this had to be hard to swallow. philadelphia the first major u.s. city to impose a tax on soda and sugary drinks. they say the money is going to help pay local government services and well, that makes jonathan just sick to his stomach. you don't like this idea? >> government services. aka slush fund charles. this is not insignificant money. 1.5 cents per ounce is about a buck eight per six pack. a can of coke now we're talking about 25 cents on soda and so frustrating is that it is for

naught. apple juice has more sugar than soda does. so what is the benefit here? and truly whereas next? a tax on salt? carbs? fat. >> yeah. >> [inaudible]. >> -- writing all of this down jonathan just so you know. >> salt, and what was the other one? >> carbs. kah carbs. >> all of these new -- >> they know people are never going to give up sugary drinks and point is not social engineering. because they act like altruism when really they need people to stay addicted to sugar in order to fund these universal pre k programs. and ultimately hurt the poor. people say here you go. perhaps you never asked for these in the first place. they have to keep people addicted to and buying the stuff in order for their programs to work. so if the program actually works

and people stop drinking sugary drinks that means kids are going to be dumb. you have created more problems than you solved. >> excellent point. >> and you understood it. >> here is thing. look at what happened with the cigarette taxes, right? they sold bonds off the cigarette settlements. and guess what happened. with the tax, people started cutting back on the cigarette usage. guess what happened to the bonds that paid for the programs? the bonds went into default. fiscally these are some of the dumbest things you can do. but i do like the carb tax. who came one that? >> -- ideological aspect to this because i don't believe it is economic at all to be quite frank with you. i think this is sort of the elites saying we want you do eat a certain way. we want your kids to eat a certain way. and we'll make it more expensive for you not to. >> there is a saying we have in yiddish, which is.

[speaking foreign language] which means it won't help. and the problem is revuls at these very fat inner city kids and it is not going to help. they will find something else. the&the tax as i understand is not just sugary ones but also indi diet sodas. pure sneering down the noses of people drinking very expensive drinks from whole foods. this is pure contempt by the ruling class for the ordinary citizen. >> and ordinary citizen is going to pay a hefty price for all of this great help from the government once again. >> my biggest beef with this is that it is a regressive tax. if we think these programs are worth funding, we should fund them through tax dollars. one kick point. if we did something with these taxes to help drive down cigarette smoking that was a good thing. >> but problem's already created.

then they became unfunded. >> -- all -- >> [ inaudible ]. >> that's fine. all i'm saying is there could be a public policy impact here but -- >> no but economically these make zero sense. >> -- [inaudible]. >> go ahead ben. >> do you think there is any data whatsoever linking the consumption soda with longevity? >> no. >> there is plenty of data linking high sugar consumption with diabetes. no doubt about that. >> let me bring jonathan because there is also -- >> the policy -- >> there probably won't be -- i don't think we're going to see people addicted to soda stop drinking sodas. i think there are some other elements with the --. >> [ inaudible ]. >> and this is disingenuous on its face. >> and in a free country, call me crazy but maybe people should

be able to drink a soda. >> you can but you are going to be penalized for it. >> that is the point. this is discretionary arbitrary force used again innocent americans. you know the real justification is supposedly cost to the public. this obesity cost. and this is the whole idea of he who writes the checks makes the rules. so as long as government is now in charge of our healthcare they are going to be telling us what we can put in our bodies -- >> you think it is bad now. wait until we have a singer payor healthcare system. wait till you see what they are punishing you for then. and why are you making poor people fund their own programs. because you are right charles. this hurts low income people. >> we're going talk about the brexit vote because it is the biggest thing out there. only five days away and and as calls grow to get out concerns are growing about the fallout. could brits leaving the eu be leaving us, america, vulnerable?

>> p?p?hx÷x÷

a battle brewing in great britain could boil over in america. the uk set to vote thursday on leaving the european union and as support grows there, concerns about a recession grows here. kennedy says the uk gets out,

ththe u.s. gets hit. >> i think so. yeah, little bit in the hort term, but i think we have our bubbles to fight. i believe in man's best destiny. if people in this country want to run our own country and not be tied to the e.u, i don't have a problem with that. they've got issues with immigration and all sorts f -- >> we understand there, how come, charlie, i know you're going to jump in. >> go ahead, buddy. >> listen, i want to tell you this is the biggest decision ever. going to have a monumental impact on the u.s. economy because i'm going there to cover for fox business, but i'm telling you, it's a blip off the radar screen for us. we have so much more problems here, so many more ways the stimulate the economy. is it going cause a market turmoil if they get out? observe. >> everything. >> not everything. >> janet yellen changing her hair color to a loigt lighter

shade. >> jonathan. >> listen, we want britain the leave the e.u. the less the world is like europe, the better. the better for all of us. the u.u used to make sense. it was primarily about open trade, open borders. it's since become regulatory state. no, it's actually -- exactly, so if britain can leave the e.u., we could have a freer trading partner that's bet for the u.s. and britain. >> the ecb has set up one emergency program, bank of england said this is going to be catastrophic. if it's going to be to that level of the disaster, will it impact our economy at all? >> no. it's not going to impact our economy one tiny bit. nothing much to speak of. down by 10%, wouldn't even be a round r error. an incredibly trivial. a lot to you and me, we could

buy a lot of food with it, but it's a trivial thing. >> adam, do you agree? >> real quick. >> the point you're missing is the net negative because it affects a major trade partner, but we'll adjust better than they will. >> guy, leave it there. >> charlie and kennedy, you guys did great. meantime, stocks on shaky ground this wee

stocks for these turbulent times. >> safe bet, charles. me and lot of other americans are going to have a cup of coffee this morning. bet on joe. ipath coffee. >> adam, what do you like? >> vanguard consumer staple. >> ben? >> spiders as always. just buy the market. you'll do great over the long run. >> i guess we could say the same

about this britain stuff. we got your back. cost of freedom continues with forbes on fox. this is the place you want to be, fox for business. forget propaganda for future attacks. terrorists now using social media even during their attacks. this week, facebook agreeing to help authorities after the orlando nightclub shooter made disturbing postings in the middle of his ram page as a terror in france caught live streaming on facebook while killing a police officer and his wife. now, some are demanding social media companies step up to help take these terrorists down, but is that their job? hi, everybody. i'm elizabeth mcdonald. welcome to forbes on fox. rich carl guard, mike,