DISCLAIMER: THE FOLLOWING "Cost of Freedom Recap" CONTAINS STRONG OPINIONS WHICH ARE NOT A REFLECTION OF THE OPINIONS OF FOX NEWS AND SHOULD NOT BE RELIED UPON AS INVESTMENT ADVICE WHEN MAKING PERSONAL INVESTMENT DECISIONS. IT IS FOX NEWS' POLICY THAT CONTRIBUTORS DISCLOSE POSITIONS THEY HOLD IN STOCKS THEY DISCUSS, THOUGH POSITIONS MAY CHANGE. READERS OF "Cost of Freedom Recap" MUST TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR OWN INVESTMENT DECISIONS.
NEW TERROR THREATS ON AMERICAN SOIL SPARKING DEBATE OVER PROFILING
WAYNE ROGERS: It just makes common sense. If you're looking for a fugitive, let's say a white male over 50 years of age, you're going to profile. You're going to look for that person. You're not going to look for somebody who's 21. Yes, absolutely you should profile. You've got to profile. I know there's a delicate balance between liberty and, if you will, and security in these cases, but there's no other way to do it. You've got to do it. Yes, of course. It's stupid not to.
JONATHAN HOENIG: We should have been profiling on September 12, 2001. Let's take a trip down memory lane here: the last war this country won, we put Japanese-Americans in internment camps. We dropped nuclear bombs on residential city centers. Yes, profiling would be at least a good start. It's not on skin color, however. It's on ideology. Muslim, Islamists, jihadist-that's a good start but only a start. We need to stop giving Korans to Gitmo prisoners. We need to stop having Ramadan celebrations in the White House. We have to stop saying the enemy is not Islamic; they are. That's how you get started.
JESSICA EHRLICH: I don't think we can actually use that as a fully effective tool, because you know I was down in the buildings in 9/11 also down in New York, and I was one of those folks down there, and we have to start using all of the tools we talked about in the 9/11 reports. And that is building a profile that isn't just going after these men. We've seen this now not only in the U.S, but over with ISIL, that they're recruiting women. We really have a problem here for the hearts and minds of people. This is a war like we've had before, whether it was with communism or anarchy in the last century. We need to be focused on what is really the issue here, and as Jonathan said-the one thing I agree with him on-- is it's not about going after the color of someone's skin, or whether someone has dark hair or looks swarthy or -- there's certain things they look for in terms of a profile that need to be addressed.
MICHELLE FIELDS: It's a piece of information; to ignore it would be irresponsible. The fact of the matter is we don't have a problem with extreme Buddhists. We have a problem with extreme Muslims. To ignore that is not fair. This is to protect all Americans, Christian and Muslim-Americans, everyone, because they pose a danger to all of us. If you're a Muslim who's going to Syria, yes, you should be tracked. We should know what you're doing there, why you're going there. I don't think that's irresponsible.
REPORT: WAR ON POVERTY HAS COST TAXPAYERS $22 TRILLION OVER PAST 50 YEARS
JONATHAN HOENIG: I don't get it, Eric. We can declare war on poverty, but not on Jihad. It's a failure, to your point. You don't fix poverty by taking from one group and giving to another. The last 50 years have proven that. In fact, the poverty rate had fallen by half before the War on Poverty began. Once the War on Poverty began the poverty level stopped going down. We spend $900 billion a year trying to fix the War on Poverty. The poverty rate does not go down. The only thing that can make it go down is free market capitalism, and that includes, for example, getting rid of minimum wage. Getting people back to work make them independent, not dependent on government largesse.
MICHELLE FIELDS: It's a better deal to sit at home and collect a check than go out and get a job. We have over 45 million people on food stamps. One out of three Americans lives in a household that has some form of welfare. Our policies right now should be focused on lifting people out of poverty. Instead our policies are focused on making people feel more comfortable living in poverty. That shouldn't be our goal.
JESSICA EHRLICH: I think what's happened is we've actually sort of raised the level. It used to be, 50 years ago when the War on Poverty started, that if you were in poverty that meant you didn't have electricity, plumbing or access to education and it was a totally different world there. Now we've actually made huge strides for everyone. So it's a boat that as it rises, everyone rises.
WAYNE ROGERS: 47 percent of people in the United States do not pay any federal tax at all. You've got the "haves", if you will-- the people who are working, supporting people who are not working. You hit on something very good, though. In 2004, as you know, the Clinton administration in conjunction with the Congress passed a work requirement for people to get welfare. Now that went away in 2004. Why? I do not know. Why was it not reinstituted? Congress dropped the ball. The administration's dropped the ball. Of course that should work. That helped. That got people back into the work force and out of poverty.
CRITICS SLAMMING NFL TEAMS FOR PAYING PLAYERS INVOLVED IN ABUSE SCANDALS
MICHELLE FIELDS: The NFL is in a tough position because they have the media telling them "he has to go", but then there are the NFL unions saying "he deserves due process, you can't cut him off completely." So they're trying to meet in the middle. But I think he shouldn't get paid.
WAYNE ROGERS: First of all, I think domestic discussions like this are a private thing. I don't think it's any business of the government to get involved. In other words, unless someone has filed a charge and said "oh this person has assaulted me", it's a legal question; it's not one of morals. If people outside of them are going to impose their own judgment on what goes on between a man and a woman in private, I think that's insane. They've got to work it out themselves, and let the courts do it if someone files something.
JESSICA EHRLICH: I think they need to negotiate these contracts going forward with business in mind. It's not a moral issue. This is a business and money issue, not only for the teams, but for the NFL itself. With the current players, the way their contracts are structured, it just depends because each one is done individually. A lot of them automatically get that money.
JONATHAN HOENIG: It's a business decision: is this player an asset or a liability? Michael Vick with the whole dog fighting incident-that to me wasn't a major liability. When you start to talk about children and domestic violence-to me that's tremendously serious, and probably deserves some kind of attention.