tv Making Money With Charles Payne FOX Business May 2, 2019 2:00pm-3:01pm EDT
didn't have the votes, neither did herman cain. what that means now now, federal reserve remains on policy it unanimously agrees with, keeping interest rates where they are, unchallenged view, no matter where you are politically is not about it change. to charles payne. charles: neil, good afternoon. i'm charles payne, this is "making money." breaking right now. big news, stephen moore withdrawing his name from being a seat on federal reserve board, saying unrelenting attacks were too much for him and his family. the markets under pressure. investors continue to wonder about the fed's next move. the question now has powell opened the trap door? or is this typical stock market temper tantrum. plus the attorney general a no-show at the house judiciary committee hearing today, while house speaker nancy pelosi said he lied to congress which is a crime. we're going to break that down for you. 2020 democratic hopefuls are
making outlandish statements trying to separate themselves from the pack of contenders. joe biden saying china is not a economic threat while kirstin gillibrand propose as plan to pay voters. all that and more on "making money". ♪ charles: attorney general william barr a no-show at the house judiciary hearing. just a day after the senate committee grilled him on capitol hill over his handling of the mueller report released just last month. now some democratic presidential hopefuls are calling for barr's resignation while other congressional dems are threatening to hold the ag in contempt for failing to provide the unredacted mueller report to congress. hillary vaughn on capitol hill with the latest. reporter: house speaker nancy pelosi is the no not ruling out putting attorney
general william barr accused him of misleading lawmakers. saying he lied to congress. >> he lied to congress. if anybody else did that, it should be considered a crime. >> should he go to jail for isn't. >> there's a process involved here and as i said, i'll say it again, how many questions you may have, the committee will act upon, how we will proceed. reporter: the department of justice responding to the pelosi threat saying in a statement to fox quote, speaker pelosi's baseless attack on the attorney general is reckless, irresponsible and false but house minority leader kevin mccarthy says barr didn't mislead congress but some lawmakers did. >> i do not believe attorney general barr lied. he has been very transparent in all of this. i think if people are looking at who has lied in the process, simply look at chairman nadler. chairman nadler asked the
attorney general to come and he said yes. reporter: barr was supposed to show up in the hearing room behind me for day two of testimony in front of congress. but he was no-show house judiciary democrats eight fried chicken in the hearing room behind me instead and put a chicken on the witness stand after an ongoing feud between the doj and house judiciary chairman over who would ask barr questions. nadler wanted staff attorneys to quiz barr. nadler threatened to charge the attorney general with contempt for being a no-show. >> obviously the attorney general is afraid to face that kind of questioning. what we saw today is besides contempt administration has for congress, only shows fear. fear of effective cross-examination, peer. we will make one more good faith attempt to negotiate and to get access to the report that we need. and then, if we don't get that
we will proceed to hold the attorney general in contempt in open hearing. port nadler saying he is giving the attorney general one more shot to work out a compromise to get him here in front of the committee saying they need to reach some type of common ground by monday. charles? charles: hillary, thank you very much. joining me former assistant attorney for southern district of new york, fox news contributor andrew mccarthy. first and foremost, the charge today nancy pelosi saying ag barr lied, what is that all about and is she on to something here? >> she is not on to something. it's a misrepresentation they're making about testimony that barr gave at a congressional hearing i believe on april 9th in answer to questions that were put to him by representative crist. what they're trying to say is that his comments were about -- essentially a general description of barr's, of
mueller's report, when in fact what he was talking about was narrowly, this is clear from the transcript, the conclusions in the mueller report. charles: what do you glean from yesterday? what do you think the democrats were trying to achieve yesterday? in other words, i mean there's a lot of political theater that surround all these kind of things but from a legal point of view, what were they trying to unearth here they couldn't get from barr? >> i think, charles, the questions about unearthing anything out of the report are frivolous because the report is actually 95% unredacted and the parts that are still redacted are things like grand jury material that if congress wanted to, they could pass a law to get access to that. it is never about what it's about, right? i think they're trying to create the impression that there is a coverup and that's, that leads into what you saw today. i think they also know that coming around the mountain pretty soon we're going to start getting the inspector general's
report on the 2016 decision making by the justice department and fbi. charles: right. >> in that period of time. and barr himself is also looking into the origins of the so-called collusion investigation. i think they know all that is coming. there is probably going to be some information that is pretty unsavory and right now they're working on destroying the messengers. charles: in case the messenger and decider to a certain degree has come under a lot of scrutiny because obviously he didn't necessarily take the bait. no matter how you feel about william barr, he was as cool as a kook couple bir. he says i'm not in the business of determining when lies are told to the american people. i'm in business of determining when a crime has been committed that straightforward stuff maybe no one in that room wanted to hear, legally is that the case? >> he is exactly right. that is the binary decision a prosecutor has to make in every case. either there is enough evidence to charge or there is not.
as he put it once that decision's made we're out of it, meaning the justice department. the most important thing he said along those lines, charles, we have to stop looking at our politics through the prism of criminal prosecution. there is a lot of stuff in the mueller report that is disturbing right? disturbs everyone. that doesn't mean it is a crime but the fact it is not a crime doesn't make it irrelevant. we shouldn't look at it in terms of criminal prosecution. we should look at it in terms of governance. charles: they're looking at it in terms of political prosecution. >> right. charles: to your point there is enough there to go with, but maybe the hopes was too high. this was -- a lot of money, time was invested into this. >> they want prosecutors to do their work for them. sometimes things are pretty unsavory that aren't illegal. used to be people on capitol hill were competent to make that
point. unless there is no crime there needs to be no further investigation. to me that is screwy but that is the way they're wired. appreciate it charles. charles: house judiciary chairman jerry nadler he will quote probably give barr until monday to comply with the subpoena for entire unredacted mueller report before proceeding to hold the attorney general in contempt. arizona congressman andy biggs son the judiciary committee. he joins us now from capitol hill. representative biggs, thanks for joining us. how seriously should we take this threat and what does it mean? >> well it is not real substantive threat but a threat from mr. nadler. it wouldn't surprise me if he tried to hold mr. barr in contempt but the reality is the laws on mr. barr's side. he has basically no other choice unless some court orders him too or congress changes the law, he can't release redacted grand jury information. by the way, 95% of this already been unredacted.
and the other aspect of this mr. nadler already had the opportunity to see the whole enchilada, the whole mueller report. he refused to go. charles: that is the point a lot of people are not hearing. ag barr offered a select number of members to go see this thing but, they wouldn't see it in a way where they perhaps could use pieces of it for political fodder. if you say you want to get to the truth, you want to see the unredacted version, it was offered, wasn't isn't. >> yes it was. that is the point. i think this is merely a distraction because they don't like the outcome of the mueller report. so what they really want to do oh, mr. barr is this bad guy. they want to shoot the messenger and because they want to distract from what the message really is. that is what this is deteriorated too quite frankly. neil: charles: feels to me that perhaps the next big, next big event will be getting mueller to capitol hill to go before both
senate and the house. but before then, do you think that there will be a compromise to get ag barr in there? he says he is willing to talk to you guys. he doesn't want to have questions hurled at him from everyone in the room including staff? >> right. i think mr. barr reached out and made a reasonable offer. we actually extended time like mr. nadler wanted to for members to ask questions but the only reason this is going forward in the way it is because mr. nadler wants to make this look like impeachment which is only time you really -- precedent for judiciary, only time you have an open hearing with staff attorneys asking questions is impeachment. you can have them asked in closed hearings. they don't want to do that. i don't want to do that either. i want him to come and testify but mr. nadler made this almost impossible. i don't though that you will get to an agreement because mr. nadler is intracksable.
charles: nothing that you will get new after yesterday's session for all involved. i want to switch gears here. president trump earlier in the week proposing changes to the asylum process. dhs will do voluntary dna test at the border in an effort to curb child trafficking. are these the moves we need to be done? neither perhaps a silver bullet but mitigate what is become a crisis everyone acknowledges? >> absolutely right. dna test something important. we know kids are being trafficked, used as basically the child for a false family unit. so they can bet in and released into the interior since we don't have any place to detain them. but they're going to do it voluntarily. that is critical. we also know that president is suggested that we should charge fees for asylum-seekers. i agree with that. most of these people coming over here literally paying 5, 6, 7, $8,000 to get into the country.
they should be able to afford a asylum application fee as well. charles: with all due respect though, most of them by the time they arrive to the border are tapped out. let's face it. let's be honest i knew a mother up here sent back for her kids. worked in nail salon. sent $14,000 to the coyote ties. her daughter was lost for three weeks. eventually she made it up here. what would the fee be reasonable? >> somewhere in the neighborhood, 50, 75 bucks. i mean i'm not talking 1000 bucks or something like that. i'm talking a reasonable fee. but the bottom line is, we don't even charge enough money to cover legal entrants. we're charging people 6, 7 bucks to come into our country. the cost is more than that, three types as much. we have all times of costs we incur for legal and illegal immigration maybe we don't deter, we don't deter enough people to come in here.
these are small things, small potatoes. if we don't start applying these, i don't know how we'll apply the bigger things. charles: i think the administration has to be applauded for throwing things out there, for trying. we elect people to go to washington, d.c., for solutions not for all of this infighting, never ending crisis. thank you very much, congressman biggs. >> thanks, charles. charles: later in the show 2020 presidential hopeful kirsten gillly brand wants to give voters cash donate to candidates. some say is this a way of buying votes. one cnn reporter trying to get jerome powell to bash him. trump fed pick stephen moore, more proof that the fed has gotten too politicized. >> the campaign over the last three or four weeks was really too tough for me and my family.
i switched to liberty mutual, because they let me customize my insurance. and as a fitness junkie, i customize everything, like my bike, and my calves. liberty mutual customizes your car insurance, so you only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ 2,000 fence posts. 900 acres. 48 bales. all before lunch, which we caught last saturday. we earn our scars. we wear our work ethic. we work until the work's done. and when it is, a few hours of shuteye to rest up for tomorrow, the day we'll finally get something done. ( ♪ )
he writes, your confidence in knee makes what i'm about to say much harder. i'm withdrawing my name from consideration. the the unrelenting attacks on my character have become untenable for me and my family. >> the president called me about this a month ago, we had a vigorous debate about my economic ideas. that never really happened. it became kind of a character assassination, in part because the left understood they couldn't beat me on my economic ideas. charles: trump's earlier choice, herman cain doa by the senate. is the fed becoming too politicized? ask 32 advisors robert wolf. you know steve moore very well. he works for your firm, strategic worldwide views, right? >> yep. charles: so, you must have somewhat mixed feelings about this i would suspect? you think he is good enough to work for you. do you think he was good enough to be a member of the federal
reserve? >> let me take a step back. i have strategic world views which is bipartisan economic insight platform. we have a lot of people from nouriel roubini, glenn hubbard. charles: you're all there you respect their views even if you don't agree from them. >> they're there because clients want to hear views from all different sides. i think with steve, right after he spoke with trump, president trump, excuse me, and larry kudlow and he asked for my opinion. i've been through that process of vetting when i had my presidential appointee on president obama. going through a vetting process is brutal. he is going through one step further, confirmation process. in this day and age literally political correctness and movement we're in where everyone is looking at everyone's past i told him that night it was dead on arrival. i told him irrespective what he thought of the democrats, i did not think it would even pass to get to a confirmation process
because republican senators either up for election and or you know, going to look at his stuff with his tax liens or his alimony. whether he has a explanation or not, like you said, when you're in the swamp, you lose before it even begins. charles: we had treasury secretary under obama had tax issues you would thought would have been disqualifying if it had been played up in the mainstream media but most people didn't know about it. i think that is where this is problematic and feels really politicized. >> can i respond to that? charles: yes. >> a decade ago versus today, everyone has a equal bully pulpit. back then i'm not sure what would have happened or not if we had social media like today but with obama, we didn't even talk about, think about twitter. facebook was not used for advertising. charles: right. so the vetting process did not necessarily include going back 19 years with someone who might have writen and then determined whether or not it was in jest or
not, going 30 years into someone's private lives. it certainly didn't include that. >> certainly went back, somewhere around five to 10 years. charles: let me tell you a story. yesterday, jerome powell make as major decision on interest rates and goes to the press conference. everyone is asking questions. then a reporter from cnn tries to slide in this question and you know, it is sort of like she was setting him up to diss powell. we have enough time. let's take a quick listen. >> if the data shows that women's wages are rising higher is there any, is there a damage to the u.s. economy if males wages are declining or not growing as fast as women? >> i think we're getting in here to commenting on a nominee of the fed indirectly. that is something i would rather avoid. it is not my role to engage with potential nominees to the fed. so i'm not really going to go there. charles: my point is, of course
you know, republican and a in a tight race is going to know that the main stream media is making this an issue, even in the midst of the fed's fomc press conference. is it too politicized be robert? are you concerned at all? tables can flip one day, are you concerned at all this will stop great people from taking government jobs we -- >> wait a second. you're talking to the guy who is the wall street obama, wall street visor to president obama. you can only imagine what i went through for eight years. we're in polarized, politicized environment. listen, i like -- charles: have we gone too far? >> of course we've gone too far. literally you and i are friends, we always go to our own corner. we have to figure out we get back the middle. whoever is next president of the united states will win the middle. that far left is 15, 20%. that far right is 15, 20%. that is why we'll have fight for
middle. why i'm on places like fox to get a different perspective. charles: i thought you were here for the new cappuccino machine? >> i'm here for that. charles: oil production surged and mounting inventories one of the things by the way pressuring the market which is trying to come back. we'll discuss it all next. ♪
♪ charles: welcome back. stocks having a rocky session but trying to stage the cp effect coming back we get this hour, crawling back. we started weak. we rallied higher. we really dove big time. now what is driving this? in part has to be temper tantrums, right? investors particularly wall street there, is some
scuttlebutt about klein trade. we'll talk about that coming up. productivity growing solid 3.6% in the fourth quarter. that is strongest in more than four years. this validates the administration promise of strong growth without inflation but will it influence the fed? then tesla they're raising cash after posting a huge first-quarter loss. $1.3 billion in senior convertible notes are due in 2024. meanwhile oil tumbling. nearly down 3%. rising inventories, concerns about this iranian sanctions waivers becoming official now. biggest loser in the s&p, the energy sector. that is being pressured by oil. that is pressuring the oil market. i want to get into the temper tantrum thing. chair powell hinting, a rate cut may be necessary doing a rate cut but not actually putting it out there, process opening up trap door to this market.
i want to bring in founder ceo of rosecliff capital, mike murphy, kingsview ciofbn contributor scott martin. is this a typical wall street temper tantrum? jay powell starts it off. he says everything you want to hear him say, we'll have more rate cuts but he says it is transitory? >> that ruins everything. he is going along so great. kind of conversations i have, you say one thing, one word all of sudden markets get crazy. you know it is interesting, i think the markets reaction to him saying that word was fair in the sense that i believe that jerome powell probably overplayed that hand a little bit because if you look at any data points out there, charles, whatever your inflation data point of the week is, whether core pce. gdp deflator, cpi, all those things are running buy low the fed target rate at 2%. to me, they have been doing so for a while. some of those numbers are coming down further from being higher
last year. so to me, saying this back off of inflation is transitory is probably not the right word to use because of the fact that it seems like it is picking up speed. i think that is what the market is concerned about. charles: i talk about wall street temper tantrums i think jay powell is emotional that the fed brew it. he acknowledged they blew it, but we blew it because this is only temporary therefore we'll not base policy on night a lot of reaction you saw today, charles, algorithmic trading, computers trading off his words. he has been cause of huge swings in the market during the last year since he came on board. i would not look into much into it. look past that, the economy and economic numbers we're getting are stronger than we have expected. as good toreor better than expected. more room to run. charles: to that point the productive number today was absolutely phenomenal.
that is goldilocks. efficiency of workers what wall street is looking for a long time. the fed will not hikes if that continue. >> we heard we'll not see a spike in productivity. now we're getting that. is it goldilocks? i would be in your camp. if not goldilocks we're in a great position right now. charles: when the market early in the session, market started to sell off, there was some scuttlebutt, chinese service saying there was some sort of impasse. looks like the meeting is set. president xi will come over here. does this remind us this will be a big deal? we put it on the backburner, when they finally resolve this could be really something that powers this market higher? >> absolutely. the same token if it fell apart at this stage of the game with the market at or near all-time highs. that would be really bad, that would cause a selloff. when the deal is done, it's a lot of skepticism comes away from, comes off the table, money
comes into the market. charles: scott, how do you handicap it? >> i think a small bounce if a deal is done but i don't think it lasts. i think the market already moved on from a trade deal, something getting done and big piece of news, mike's point i rarely disagree with, if it drives flows in the market would be algorithmic in nature and not long term money. we can get a deal done, whether over lunch or dinner, whatever these guys are doing these days. we don't know the strength of the deal or validation of the deal for many months or years to come. in practice something looks good on the surface but the fact that the deal ends up working out for both countries or both entities remains to be seen. charles: guys, i have 30 seconds maybe 20, quickly, jobs report tomorrow, good news is good news? is that what wall street is rooting for, scott? >> yes i think so. watching wage numbers is always good thing to say because of inflation focus. 200-k added wayne growth numbers.
.2% or so what we're expecting. >> mike? >> i want good news to be good news. if it is too strong, look out it could be viewed too good for the market. charles: i'm wondering if powell brought that equation back in the picture? mike, scott, you're two of best. joe biden and his gaffs are back. with the presidential candidate brushing off china, not a threat to the united states? huh? our panel is going to weigh in on that next. ♪
openturning 50 opens theuard. door to a lot of new things... like now your doctor may be talking to you about screening for colon cancer. luckily there's me, cologuard. the noninvasive test you use at home. it all starts when your doctor orders me. then it's as easy as get, go, gone. you get me when i'm delivered... right to your front door and in the privacy of your own home. there's no prep or special diet needed. you just go to the bathroom, to collect your sample. after that, i'm gone, shipped to the lab for dna testing that finds colon cancer and precancer. cologuard is not right for everyone. it is not for high risk individuals, including those with a history of colon cancer or precancer. ibd, certain hereditary cancer syndromes, or a family history of colon cancer. maybe i'll be at your door soon! ask your doctor if cologuard is right for you. covered by medicare and most major insurers.
mountains in the east, i mean in the west. they can't figure out how they're going to deal with the corruption that exists within the system. i mean, you know, they're not bad folks, folks, but guess what? they're not, they're not competition for us. charles: former vice president joe biden making his first big mistake of the campaign, telling the audience he is not concerned about china. that view is not shared by leaders of either party, national security experts or the american people. a recent "gallup poll" public feels china is greater enemy of the country than north korea. not the fact that china has been stealing jobs, 3.5 million jobs to be precise. what is joe thinking? here to discuss, britt mchenry, tiana lowe and jon summers. let me start with you, brit? do you think joe biden believes that? hey i want to be opposite of president trump? >> there is lot of contrarian
going on. we want to rage against trump. that is their way of thinking. joe biden has positives for democrats but often he trips over his own words. what stood out to me, they're not bad folks. million people in concentration camps up in northern china? one-child policy that they just got rid of in january of 2016. humanitarian issues they have. they continue to underminus with north korea and in venezuela backing maduro. so clearly you know when bernie sanders and his other cronies are come out to say that was a slip-up, it is bad. not just republicans criticizing. charles: bernie sanders had the biggest mistake so far early campaign season saying felons who are serving time now, all of them should vote. that hurt him badly in the polls. this in my mind joe biden's first gaffe. what do you think of it. >> that is not my way. i take it with bernie for what it is worth. he recognizes as we all do china
continues to be a growing threat but i think the point he was trying to make, they're not going to eliminate the american economy. they are a threat. we do need to keep an eye on them. we need to make sure we have all of our ducks in a row, he was making the point they have problems of their own. those also shouldn't be minimized. he was campaigning on positive note, expressing more confidence in the american worker and american innovation. charles: i'm not talking about the american worker part. i don't want to get too far afield here, you know, there are a lot of people who, a lot of experts including liberal think tanks that would say the exact opposite what you said. that china is breathing down our neck. some say to use tpp as a measure, they're doing better than us in storms of the economy, number two economy, growing 6% a year. >> let's be clear i didn't say they were not a threat. i said they wouldn't take down the american economy. we have to be careful twisting people's words.
we all agree there is threat there. they're not going to take down our economy. we're better than them. most people have more faith in america than that. charles: tiana, a "gallup poll" says the greatest threat, enemy to the united states, russia number one at 32. china though gained 10 percentage points from 10 to 21% year-over-year. people are very concerned about this, to accept a company that made man made islands, militarized them. building up military forces around the world, the silk road program many think is a trojan horse we should sit back, say, hey we got this. >> russia is a lot more openly adversarial towards the united states. if you look, even the obama administration recognized that china was committing unprecedented theft of american intellectual property and slapped them with repeated piecemeal tariffs. for biden to act these are not bad guys, a country that jails its own citizens in black jails,
tortures them, puts muslim and religious majorities in prison camps those are bad guys to their own people and bad to us. charles: 3 1/2 million jobs mostly lost in the midwest. not going well with the voters i don't think. other. the other 2020 contender, kirsten gillibrand giving $600 worth of vouchers for federal candidates in office. is it just me, or, brit, does it seem like a way of actually paying voters, paying off voters? >> absolutely. she positived this on medium. becoming the platform for lagging democratic presidential hopefuls. charles: is that when you do the hail mary? >> going for full miami dolphins 72 hail mary. it is absurd premise. it is taxpayer money. million dollars to create a office to generate the paperwork
to do this, only retrieves a million point one back. $100,000 difference. i don't think it creates that much of a difference at all. she is trying to get votes. charles: jon, feels like every day something new, intriguing comes from the democratic parties these candidates. >> i have to tell you ridiculous political idea. political consultants like me don't need taxpayer dollars in order to get business. i get what she is trying to do. she is trying the level the playing field with this idea as it relates to our elections. right now because of citizens united very rich and corporations have you know, unfair advantage. charles: right. >> in our electoral system. i get where she is coming from. this is ridiculous idea. charles: you guys are wearing gucci loafers, the ritchie ties. you don't need the money. tiana, there is sense of desperation, one-upmanship if you will, another quasi-bizarre
offering coming from the pack. >> gillibrand's polling at half the amount of andrew yang. she is sitting united states senator. so i think that you see the same thing happening right now with liz warren trying to get her name back into the headlines by proposing total student loan forgiveness. just insane proposals that do generate a little bit of free media attention but in the long run to show these campaigns are sputtering and dying. charles: yeah, it will be fun though. brit, tiana, jon, thank you very much. appreciate it. maduro still in power as the up rising in venezuela seems to be falling short. will the trump administration step in with military assistance? new comments from congresswoman ilhan omar doubling down blaming the united states for the crisis in venezuela.
a business owner always goes beyond what people expect. that's why we built the nation's largest gig-speed network along with complete reliability. then went beyond. beyond clumsy dials-in's and pins. to one-touch conference calls. beyond traditional tv. to tv on any device. beyond low-res surveillance video. to crystal clear hd video monitoring from anywhere. gig-fueled apps that exceed expectations. comcast business. beyond fast. when you pay attention big things happen.ngs. horizons expand.
to help guaido. >> i've been watching him and watching the moves and, you know, i've -- there is a lot of spirit for him and it is from a constitutional standpoint the way it is supposed to be. he was elected. they, they should be running it. now, at least we could go in an help him a little bit, maybe a lot. charles: joining me now fox news national security analyst walid pharis. america is certainly there in spirit. but you have to wonder how could we help, particularly doing more other than getting into the country? >> more on the spirit is basically on the ground. we've done a lot of the president and administration, many in congress pushed for recognition. it occurred. it impacted the dozens of countries worldwide including most here in latin america and beyond the hemisphere.
beyond that, aid, we are at the border in colombia. we need to first go through the process of our friends in brazil and colombia. they could do much more than what they're doing right now but at the end of the day if maduro uses armed forces seriously against guaido and the units supporting guaido, then i think the president will go in. charles: what if there isn't really a, an aggressive military use, just a show of force, pushing around crowds, tear gas, but, not open attack then would we be justified sending in any sort of military aid? what would the role of the lima group you alluded to, what would their role be in any military intervention? >> let's begin with the last part of what you said, very important, very interesting and would allow us to do something. going alone would be perceived meddling in another country but going with the lima group, with oas, organization of latin american states, american states, would be the appropriate
thing to do below the united nations. what can be done, the about civilians have a large segment of venezuela population as refugees. same goes for colombia. we have limited ways to intervene in the beginning based on the refugee question. charles: i want to ask you about democratic congresswoman ilhan omar of minnesota saying that the united states is partly to blame for the situation in venezuela, saying that the trump administration quote, helped lead the devastation. take a quick listen. >> i don't believe that interventions that are pushing for regime change are in the best interests of venezuela and the best interests of the american people. charles: so america created the situation there and, would, it would just be worse if we intervened further? >> i'm not surprised, my friend this narrative, we heard it before on campuses, in the media, we heard something similar by advisors of the
previous administration. now for the first time we hear it from actual members of congress, that is, actually creating a shock among many people. this is a position that has been idealogical for many decades, many years. some americans believe that america is at fault. some americans believe and maybe congresswoman is part of them that the real friend are russia and iran and qatar and muslim brotherhood, that has been translated into statements such as one we heard. charles: walid phares, great to have you on. we help explain all in a way easy for us to understand. >> thank you. charles: facebook, announcing, this is breaking news. facebook announcing permanently a banning far right activity, alex jones, for being dangerous. they banned several anti-semitic leaders includeing nation of
islam louis farrakhan. after they reevaluated content that had been posted previously. plus their activities outside of social media. we will be right back. deliverys or the latest phones. $4.95. no matter what you trade, at fidelity it's just $4.95 per online u.s. equity trade. no matter what you trade, at fidelity your control. like bedhead. hmmmm. ♪ rub-a-dub ducky... and then...there's national car rental. at national, i'm in total control. i can just skip the counter and choose any car in the aisle i like. so i can rent fast without getting a hair out of place. heeeeey. hey! ah, control. (vo) go national. go like a pro. there's brushing...and there's oral-b power brushing. oral-b just cleans better.
one small business feeling confident sells patriotic design apparel, named after the military code for getting wounded soldiers off the battlefield. the company primarily owns and employs veterans. it also helps support the nation's veterans through nonprofit initiatives. the ceo, retired army captain joins me now. tyler, first, thank you for your service. >> thank you so much for having me back. charles: thanks for coming on the show. let's talk about the business, how it got started and how's it doing? >> yeah. in 2012, i was deploying quite often with the special operations aviation command and i was tasked with the job of making morale shirts. there was no real brands out there that resonated with us. we set out to create one. obviously the importance of u.s. manufacturing and finding a way to create jobs and create products here in the united states is extremely important to us. the last four years we have been
able to grow from three employees to about 200 employees and a lot of that is due to the most recent growth, based on a lot of the tax reforms and deregulation and the importance of trying to take manufacturing away from china, back to the united states, all of that's contributed to incredible growth. we have been named as the 31st fastest growing company and there's really no end in sight. charles: you know, it's interesting because as you were reeling off the numbers, it's only a matter of time and perhaps it's already happened where wall street is going to knock on your door and you will say hey, you can take this up several notches higher but the caveat is, you probably should do this manufacturing in china or in a different country. it's going to be enticing. >> yeah. i'm going to have to push back on that. with the shipping costs and shipping companies consolidating, with the fact that there's a lot of uncertainty out there with trade deals with china, i think people are starting to understand that u.s. manufacturing is going to
have to become more of a focus. we have been able to partner with bass pro and field & stream and dick's sporting goods and a lot of other businesses that say you know what, i want to do u.s. manufacturing. our company has been leading the way in just in time manufacturing, allowing us to compete with amazon, with china, through technology and through innovation. charles: you know, of all the institutions in this country from big business to government to religion, only one is seeing a major uptick in approval, the military. it's wonderful to see. are you seeing that reflected in your business as well? >> i think people recognize that you know, the fact i have so many veteran employees and the grit and determination to make sure that every task and every job is executed with precision, with just the things that you learn in the military to make sure it's successful. people want to be part of that. they like being affiliated with their brand, they like being affiliated with the fact that we
remain hyper profitable but we also give back to our community. charles: that's a beautiful thing. it really is, tyler. we are going to let you go. when we talk small business and patriotism, you are the first person we think of. thank you very much. >> thank you, sir. charles: cheryl casone in for liz claman. cheryl, over to you. cheryl: thank you very much, charles payne. we have breaking news to kick off the 3:00 p.m. hour. president trump holding a closed door meeting at this hour with republican senators at the white house. we will take you there live if anyone decides to step before our cameras. this as reports surface that chinese president xi jinping is looking for dates to meet with president trump to solidify a massive trade deal in june. we are going to go straight to the nation's capital for up to the minute details on that. meanwhile, the lengthy trade war, just one thing bringing this minnesota dairy farmer to tears. we are going to talk to mark