Outrage growing over president's latest change to ObamaCare

This is a rush transcript from "The Five," February 13, 2014. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

ERIC BOLLING, CO-HOST: Hello, everyone. I'm Eric Bolling, along with Andrea Tantaros, Bob Beckel, Dana Perino and Greg Gutfeld.

It's 5 o'clock in New York City. This is "The Five."


BOLLING: First, President Obama rammed through his signature health care law. Next, he strong-armed the Supreme Court, which he stacked with liberals to call ObamaCare a tax, and then the president, 28 times, personally changed or delayed the law to suit his needs and presumably his political pals, 28 times without consulting Congress. Some of us on the right are downright of the president acting more like king Obama than the elected official he is.

Here's Krauthammer.


CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Remember how Democrats were complaining that when Republicans were trying to overturn ObamaCare, it was somehow unpatriotic because it was then an attack on the law of the land. This law of the land doesn't even exist. It exists in Obama's head.
It's whatever he thinks he wakes up in the morning and decides what the law is going to be.


BOLLING: Well, President Obama's use of the executive order, executive privilege, whatever, is getting so egregious even liberal professors are pushing back.


JONATHAN TURLEY, CONSTITUTIONAL ATTORNEY: I think that many people will look back at this period in history and see nothing but confusion as to why people remained so silent when the president asserted these types of unilateral actions. You have a president who is claiming the right to basically rewrite or ignore or negate federal laws. That's a very dangerous thing.


BOLLING: Bob, your guy thinks he can do whatever the heck he wants.

BOB BECKEL, CO-HOST: Well, first of all, let me give you a few facts here. He did not stack the Supreme Court with liberals. It's a conservative court, and it has been for the last 15 years.

Secondly, he did not ram this bill through Congress. He got enough votes to win in Congress. So, not ramming it through.

So, the idea that somehow you say he stacked the Supreme Court, that may be the most laughable thing I've heard.

Look, he is right on the edge here.

BOLLING: Did he appoint two and both were very liberal --

BECKEL: Yes. But it's still a 5-4 court.

BOLLING: I understand what -- maybe it's 5-4, but go ahead.

BECKEL: I think Charlie is right. I think he's right on the edge on a lot of these things and the way to answer this is go to court. I mean, Turley says people are going to look back on this period of history. Why not look back and say, OK, let's take it to the court and see what the Supreme Court says.

BOLLING: Greg, Turley said, a constitutional professor and lawyer, thinks it's dangerous. Do you (ph)?

GREG GUTFELD, CO-HOST: Yes. The problem is -- you know, what's interesting, the ObamaCare defense mirrors that of war. No matter how bad it gets, you have to stick with it. You can't bail out. Instead of patriotism, it's Obama-ism because if you decide you dissent, then people look at you in the same way they would look at somebody who is not being patriotic, and you have the media that is there alongside cheering it along.

It's like that corrupt cop in a movie where a victim always goes to the corrupt cop and says I've been mugged and just laughs. That's the media.

If you complain about these things, the media just laughs and goes, so what? They are the mocking corrupt bag of slime that laughs whenever you point out the lies.

BECKEL: Well, still doesn't mean they can't go to court.

GUTFELD: I wasn't answering that question.

BOLLING: Bob, you're right. You're 100 percent right. It became law. It went from bill to law and he won.

The problem is, Dana, as we pointed out yesterday, 28 different times President Obama has unilaterally, just -- he's decided he wants to change a law. He can't do that.

DANA PERINO, CO-HOST: The Supreme Court gave the president the go- ahead to implement the law, but it's the implementation of the law that has showed that government doesn't do a good a job as they think they would like to.

Jonathan Turley, serious professor, used to really complain about the concerns about too much power in the executive during the Bush administration. I think it's refreshing to see it now, too, because he's not so much interested in defending the president himself. He's talking about the presidency as a whole, as an office. What he's saying is that in the future, it will be much more difficult for any president to resist doing this type of unilateral action without the -- without working with Congress if somebody doesn't raise red flags right now.

The concern that Turley is explaining is not just about one particular policy with President Obama. It's a concern about the strength of the presidency going forward.

BOLLING: Ands, Charles Krauthammer said right there and says President Obama wakes up and decides what he wants to do and does it. He doesn't consult Congress.

If we don't consult Congress, what do we need them for? Why do we need a Congress and a Senate, and why do we elect these people, representatives?

ANDREA TANTAROS, CO-HOST: A bit odd coming from a constitutional professor, a former professor. But he is lawless. There's no question about it. He's shown he has no regard for the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, separation of powers, checks and balances, unilaterally decides what he's going to do with ObamaCare, sometimes immigration, and when it comes to executing Americans abroad.

The reason he's so bold is because of the media. They never checked him. They never were the check and balance that they were supposed to be.

And my fear -- I know, Bob, you say that go to court.

BECKEL: Yes. That's an idea.

TANTAROS: My fear is that if he does get sued, let's say, and the court comes down against the president, will the president ignore a court order?


TANTAROS: What happens then, and I do think we are seeing the beginning of a constitutional crisis, if not we're in the midst of a full- fledge constitutional crisis, and I do agree that it is the precedent that is the most important thing. What if someone even far more radical than President Barack Obama comes in and the precedent has been set that checks and balances mean nothing and they can do whatever they want. That is --

BECKEL: You think the president of the United States is going to ignore the Supreme Court? That would be a constitutional crisis. That would lead to impeachment and it's not going to happen.

TANTAROS: I would not put anything past --

BECKEL: You guys are making this guy into a bigger, bigger, bigger ogre, than he -- I mean, it's just ridiculous. This guy has got you guys consumed.

TANTAROS: I don't know, Bob. No one knows.

BECKEL: Obama is consuming your mind.

BOLLING: Let's move on. Remember when the president claimed he had absolutely no idea that his Web site wasn't ready to go live October 1st. If you don't remember, here's a refresher.


BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: On the Web site, I was not informed directly that the Web site would not be working the way it was supposed to. Had I been informed, I wouldn't be going out saying, boy, this is going to be great.


BOLLING: Wow. Interesting, because according to the Hill, we found out today they obtained documents, FOIA requested documents 18 separate times he either met with Kathleen Sebelius or spoke to her on the phone, how in the world did he not know?

PERINO: Well, I have a feeling it's possibly because she didn't know the extent of how bad the Web site was going to be, or that she didn't tell him. I don't think -- I'm going to say -- I don't think the president is lying. Some people are trying to suggest that he lied about it, that he didn't know the extent of it.

I can imagine being in the Oval Office and saying, yes, sir, we have some challenges, but we are working on them and we should be ready to go by October 1st. The fact that they weren't completely honest either with her and then ultimately with the president is a concern for which no one has actually been held accountable.

BOLLING: You know, Ands, we've talked about this before. A couple other things that the president claimed he didn't know about. They put this ring around him, this plausible deniability ring around him. Well, you know, we talked to your people, your advisers, but never physically spoke to the president.

She's got 18 different occurrences meeting with the president, seeing him and speaking to him. Do you believe there's any way he didn't know that site wasn't ready? And if that's true, should she be fired in?

TANTAROS: She definitely should be fired, but that would be a reward.
I actually think she wants to be fired, but there's a growing sense, and if you read staffers in the White House on background, you get the sense that they don't like to deliver bad news to President Obama. He doesn't like bad news, and Dana makes a really good point.

I can't imagine going into my former Boston, a governor or a senator and saying this thing is a total disaster, because then they're going to look and go, well, fix it, Andrea, it's on your head. So, I do think they did probably keep a lot of it from him to cover their own behinds.
However, I cannot believe that Kathleen Sebelius had no idea. I am not buying that for one second.

BOLLING: Can I just go back to Dana one second? I'll get you guys in. There was a piece about three months ago where there were two reporters. I believe it was the "Washington Post," I can't remember their names, but they said that the advisers, President Obama's advisers, were made aware that that site was nowhere near ready. Why didn't the advisers tell him?

PERINO: That was the question of what is the information flow like to the president, and is it so broken that they don't tell him or were they not told themselves or did they think the media would give him a pass on it? Remember when President Obama went to the White House Correspondents Dinner the first year and said something like, everything was going to be smooth sailing and he made the joke because you all voted for me.

It's actually not so much of a joke because everyone sort of -- everybody laughed because they knew that it was true, and I think the softness that the media has treated him with leading up to the Web site failures led to probably less than satisfying answers given to the president.

BOLLING: Greg, someone failed. Either President Obama failed, Kathleen Sebelius failed, the advisers. Who -- where does the buck stop?

GUTFELD: Well, let's -- I don't know if it's President Obama's fault because, let's face it, with Sebelius, she's not the sharpest quill on the porcupine. I have a feeling that she went to the White House 18 times, but she didn't know that it was the White House. She thought it was an Ethan Allen furniture outlet, and she never actually ran into President Obama.

Look, the way I -- this is the way I see this. The administration and the media, which is its enabler, has absolutely no patience for the majority of Americans. So, in that case, every act and law is a certain kind of retribution for past sins. So, in a sense, we are at the mercy of vengeful cultists who are determine to gut their mother and father for not being nice to them when they're kids.

BECKEL: You know, you've got to be in a White House and work in a White House, I think the two of us here in any event. I very rarely remember a cabinet secretary telling the president bad news.

PERINO: What? I forget you worked for Carter.


BECKEL: You tell me how many people stood up to Bush?

PERINO: Stood up, absolutely. What do you think it was like to have to tell him that the banks were failing? You think Hank Paulson and Ben Bernanke didn't need to call him up?

BECKEL: Well, that was not tough to tell him because they were failing --


PERINO: Why did you think General Petraeus comes back and has to tell the president the war is failing, we have to do something to change it?
What did the president do? Fixed it. Of course, I told him bad news every day.

BECKEL: Cabinet -- by and large, cabinet secretaries do not. Leaving that aside. You have no evidence that Sebelius in these meetings -- first of all --

BOLLING: Someone had to know, Bob.

BECKEL: Somebody had to know. Somebody -- I'm sure somebody knew.
I'm not trying to excuse her. But, first of all, these meetings, a lot were meetings with health care groups, they were meeting when she was there.

PERINO: And the IRS.

BOLLING: This is his signature legislation, kicking off the day it was supposed to kick off. It wasn't ready.

BECKEL: My guess --

BOLLING: If the boss had something going, a brand new show ready to go and you knew something was going to go wrong with the show, wouldn't you tell the boss before --

BECKEL: No. Would you?

BOLLING: Yes, I would.

BECKEL: Yes. Sure, you would.

BOLLING: That's just me. We want to get your health care numbers, can we do it in a second?

BECKEL: Yes, I don't -- they are so good I don't want to bring a poll over your anti-Obama-ism.

BOLLING: All right. We'll do it after the next SOT. How will all the politics the president is playing with our lives play out in the mid- term elections later this year? I have an idea, but let's listen from Rush.


RUSH LIMBAUGH, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: I fully expect the 2014 mid- terms to be a wave election like 2010. I -- I think the people in this country are going to sweep Democrats out of office every chance they get, every opportunity they get.


BOLLING: All right.

BECKEL: Can I ask a question? Is there anybody besides -- that we have videotape of besides Rush Limbaugh and Charles Krauthammer? I mean, do we ever have anybody else?

BOLLING: He's got 17 million people who listen to him daily.

BECKEL: Seventeen million right wingers.


BECKEL: No, they are right wingers. Of course, his opinion -- he think it's going to be a wave election, he doesn't know anything about elections, number one. Number two, a wave election would mean -- would mean you're going to knock out somewhere between 15 percent and 20 percent in the House and 10 percent in the Senate, I don't think that's going to happen. Excuse me, 20 percent in the Senate.

TANTAROS: I somewhat agree with Bob. I don't think it's going to be a wave, as Rush is talking about. If he's trying Republicans to get out and vote, it's a great strategy to do so. I joke that Republicans never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. So fingers crossed on this one.

Do I think it's going to be a wave? Maybe not. I think ObamaCare is going to be an important issue, but on a lot of this stuff I feel like people aren't paying attention or they don't care and if the media is not reporting it then they don't care.

And one last point on the last block, maybe people didn't tell President Obama how bad the Web site was because the IRS scandal had just happened, so this was on the heels of that. No one got fired, so why stick your neck out if you're going to keep your job anyway? You might as we will not say anything. Who cares?

BOLLING: Quick thoughts on this one, guys?

GUTFELD: Rush could be right, as long as the Republicans do not fall into traps and say stupid things. Find normal candidates, no warlocks, mad doctor, two-headed giraffes and run on --

BECKEL: Impossible.

GUTFELD: -- run on what makes America work, because people sense a decline. They are hungering for renewal. You've got to show them how the current administration has undermined all the principles that has made America great.

It's a very simple straightforward thing. That's all you've got to do, and you'll probably win. It's "morning again" again basically.

BOLLING: Dana, maybe not a technical definition of Bob's definition of a wave. But wouldn't winning the Senate and keeping the House be a wave?

PERINO: Yes, in my opinion we don't need a wave election. We just really -- Republicans should really trying to be winning back the Senate, and I think mechanically, they are better poised to do that in 2014 than they were in the last several elections, partly because they have put full- time workers on the ground in all of those key swing states and just the way that the calendar falls and the way the states are this year, the Republicans are in very good position.

But it's not -- it won't be easy so it's going to be really fun to tune into "The Five" every day and watch Bob's head explode.

BOLLING: Right, as the polling comes in.

Directly ahead --

BECKEL: I just want to call the Republican primaries between the wing nuts and the incumbent Republicans.

BOLLING: All right. Directly ahead, should America be a land of income equality or income opportunity?

Chris Christie weighs in on that one, next on "The Five."


TANTAROS: Income inequality has become the battle cry for Democrats this election season as they search for a distraction from the ongoing ObamaCare mess. Governor Chris Christie, a potential candidate for the
2016 GOP presidential nomination, addressed this looming fight, drawing a definitive line between the Republican and Democratic positions on the issue.


GOV. CHRIS CHRISTIE (R), NEW JERSEY: I grew up in an American that said life isn't fair, but opportunity is. I don't think the American people want income equality. What they want is income opportunity. That's the spirit of this country.

How do I get a little more? I think that the problem we have is an opportunity gap, not an income equality gap.

One of the big discussions and conversations over the course of the next two years in national politics is going to be, do you want mediocrity, or do you want greatness?


TANTAROS: Mediocrity or greatness?

Dana, the "Wall Street Journal's" Daniel Henninger wrote a piece that the left will never support the solution to income inequality.

So if the problem is we have people who are poor and we need to lift them up, and isn't the solution -- and you talk about this a lot, education, and they have put bulls eyes squarely on charter schools and private schools that are giving kids education to prevent them from ever seeing poverty?

PERINO: So, Dan Henninger writes every Thursday in the "Wall Street Journal" and I wake up and I know I'm going to see Henninger and Karl Rove on Thursday as well. I always think Henninger is saying things in his columns that people will eventually start talking about around two months because he just is not afraid to hit the nail on the head.

This issue is about whether or not somebody like the new mayor of New York will take on the school -- the unions in the schools and all of these places where you have persistent poverty over decades. It's really the thing that can only -- that's the only thing that could change the income inequality gap in the long run. There might be things you can do to tinker around the edges here and there, make people feel a little bit better.

But the answer really is the schools and revitalizing the schools, and the question is will the Democrats really stand up and do that? And he surmises that the answer is no.

TANTAROS: Eric, isn't it because they don't want the solution because stirring up income inequality stirs up anger and resentment and they can use that for political purposes?

BOLLING: It's the blame game, divide and conquer, class warfare argument where you have, look, the top 1 percent are making so much more and you're not doing a better and there's a problem so we need to tax you more so we can give you more stuff. The problem is over the years, over 50 years that we're kind of keeping our eye on poverty in America and taxation and redistribution of wealth, it's not working.

Poverty continues to go up. We continue to take more from the earners and give it to the people who are in need, and it doesn't inspire. It doesn't provoke people to go out and get a job.

What Christie is saying, look, he had a great example in that speech.
He said in America, if you offered people the same income for the next -- for the rest of their life, most Americans would say no because I think I can do better and I'll continue to strive to do better.

He hits the nail on the head but income equality says everyone makes the same thing -- in a perfect vacuum, everyone would make the same thing for the rest of their lives. That's not America.

TANTAROS: That sounds really boring as well. We take the same vacations, Greg. We drive the same cars.


TANTAROS: We're cookie cutters. It sounds pretty bad for the economy.

What's wrong with a guy living on a street making say $40,000, $50,000 a year and someone making $10 million a year a couple doors down, why is that such a problem?

GUTFELD: Well, if you ask the left what can be done about income, it's like asking a python what can be done about a mouse. Inequality is the next step in coercion.

This is -- historically, this is how it's done. You identify an issue, in this case income inequality. You create the conflict, you stress urgency, you nominate yourself as the solution and then you watch people suffer and die, and then it's rinse and repeat.

First you had -- first you had, Bob, the left say your health care wasn't good enough so they took it from you. Then they said your job wasn't good enough so they took the 2 million jobs. So, now, they are saying your income -- your income isn't good which that value they want to ascribe, as you say. This person is making too much.

Whether you control that income or not does no good for the person making less. That's the next step in leveling the society under their coercive thumb.

TANTAROS: They are essentially picking pockets, Bob, like -- almost like poverty pimps, right, so if we can keep this going like the rat catcher wants to keep rats running around or else he wouldn't have a job, it seems like that's what they are trying to do here.

BECKEL: You know, I really don't know where to begin here. It's so phenomenal to listen to the four of you.

First of all, do you really believe that liberals want to see people live in rat holes? You think they want to see them in poverty? We've done as much -- we may have been wrong on a lot of things but we've tried hard.


TANTAROS: Here's the point, that's a noble goal -- I'm sorry, Bob.

BECKEL: The top 1 percent -- the 1 percent of the 1 percent, you know how much money they gave in the political cycle in '12, 2012, 40 percent?
They bought themselves a government. They have done a good job with it in Congress.

PERINO: But they mostly gave to Obama.

BECKEL: And rich people get awarded --


PERINO: But they mostly gave to Obama.

BECKEL: Can I finish what I'm saying?

PERINO: Bob, no! Actually, no. Actually, you can't --

BECKEL: I'm talking about the Congress, the Congress.

PERINO: You're saying that they gave -- that --

BECKEL: Congressional races.

PERINO: That's not what you said initially.

BECKEL: I'm sorry.

PERINO: You can't say something like that.

BECKEL: One percent of 1 percent gave 40 percent of the congressional money. Now, that is a lot of money.

GUTFELD: Do you know that liberals tend to make more money than conservatives but conservatives give more money to charity?

BECKEL: I do know you do give more money to charity. I agree.

One more thing to our jersey governor here, with all his various problems, I'm glad to see he's trying offense. But equal opportunity -- you tell me that kids graduating from Scarsdale High School outside of New York in the very rich neighborhood, they have an equal opportunity with the black kids at a school in Harlem?

PERINO: But that's what we talked about, what are the Democrats willing to do to change the fundamental problem which is the problem of urban school districts that don't graduate enough kids?


BECKEL: And would I say the problem is jobs.

BOLLING: Public schools -- unionized public school, there's ground zero.


BOLLING: Because the only way you bring the bottom 20 percent out of poverty is by education.

BECKEL: Give them all the vouchers they want. I'm all for vouchers, and I'm just telling you.

TANTAROS: Yu know what their answer is instead? Busing. They are starting to bus.

BECKEL: Oh, that is ridiculous.

TANTAROS: Bob, it is --

BECKEL: Oh, come on. If you knew the history of busing, you wouldn't say that statement.

TANTAROS: No, you just can't say it's not a problem, Bob. This is a real problem in America. They are taking children from one school district and they're busing them to the others. It's something that they did decades ago. It's a real problem. Parents are concerned about it.

And here's my point: it's a noble goal to take people out of port. No one is arguing that. The problem is none of these solutions are going to make people rich. Putting them on Medicaid doesn't make them rich.
Putting them on food stamp does not make them rich. It doesn't work.
That's the point.

BECKEL: You know, busing almost ripped this country apart in the '60s and the '70s.

TANTAROS: They are doing it again.

BECKEL: The idea that somehow that is repeating itself is absolutely

TANTAROS: It's a reality and I'll send you plenty of articles after the show.

PERINO: I was bussed in Denver, after third grade and fourth grade.
After two years of being bussed into the school district, what did my parents finally do? It's what other parents do. They made the decision to movement where did I end up going, to a suburban school that was pretty much all white.

So, it goes back to the point Andrea made initially. Are the Democrats willing to do something about the fundamental problem of education? You might be for school choice but the president is not and neither is the mayor and that's why those kids are going to continue to have failing schools.

BECKEL: I am for vouchers but I'm not for beating up union teachers who are the lion's share are very good.

PERINO: Give the teachers better resources.

BECKEL: They should get better resources, I agree with that.

TANTAROS: We are going to continue this debate another time. But first country superstar Billy Ray Cyrus is back and he gives his daughter a run for her money in the twerking department. We'll show you the remake of his the video that may leave you a little achy and breaky, up next on "The Five."


GUTFELD: They said it was impossible to make a song that's worse than "Achy Breaky Heart." They were wrong. Billy Ray Cyrus does it again, with a remake in rap of that old pile of crap.

I say have your children leave the room, but maybe it's good to see evil just to know it exists and we blurred out most of it.


GUTFELD: I guess his daughter rubbed off on him. But if you can't beat them, join him, right, pops?


GUTFELD: The Apple apparently doesn't fall far from the tree when the tree is lying in the gutter. It's amazing that a person with the ability to do anything in life chooses this. This makes Miley's twerking seems Shakespearean.


GUTFELD: Cultural decline is depressing, whether in the form of the manufactured shock of his daughter or the sad surrender to decay disguised as performance.

Art, like pornography may be hard to define, but this is so bad it makes porn look like art. Don't get me wrong. Rebellion can be beautiful, but crassness for the sake of provocation diminishes all, including bystanders. Intended to shock, it only invites mockery and sadness and nausea.


GUTFELD: Hooray for dad who celebrates the degradation of women in pop culture paraded as pieces of meat for the rabble to devour, also applied to feed the lowest common denominator. But perhaps this unbearable horror is reassuring. We fight over President Obama, health care, the NSA, taxes, but here, they there can be no dissent, black, white, rich, poor, young, old, we can all agree that this might be the worst thing ever.

And for that, Billy, thank you, you have brought this country together under a singular belief that this really blows.

You know what's hard about doing this? We can't show you most of the video because it's all like naked ladies, and it's weird because it's like about his daughter.

PERINO: It's so gross.

GUTFELD: Just strange.

Dana, I have a theory that this was an excuse for a casting call to get hot strippers.

PERINO: Yes, when you were showing the sound bites, I was wondering, can you imagine if you got asked to be in that video and then you were like, yes, that would be terrific. I don't understand why didn't anybody tell him that this would be terrible.

Also, as a former country music deejay from 2:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m. in 1992, when "Achy Breaky Heart" was the number one song and I had to play it every hour on the hour for KCCY FM, I've had that song in my head for every
20 years and now, it will never end.

GUTFELD: That explains so many things, you wandering around going achy breaky --

PERINO: Imagine trying to take your math test singing, don't break my heart, my achy breaky heart -- which was a better version than that.

GUTFELD: Andrea, do you think this was his way of bonding with Miley, like you can't beat her, join her?

TANTAROS: Whatever happened to just calling a shrink for daughter- father counseling. Yes, when the parent follows the child and your child is Miley Cyrus, it's pretty bad. I actually got sad watching this video.
I feel bad for Billy Ray.

In the words of Wu Tang, which I really never quote ever, cash really does rule everything around him and everyone. So, he's doing this for money. But what I think most disappointing is when Miley Cyrus had her MTV performance, he came out and said he was disappointed in his daughter, and but he did support her as his daughter. And then, a couple of months later, he goes and does it, to see how popular she got.

PERINO: Yes, gross.

TANTAROS: I mean, it's pretty pathetic.

GUTFELD: Eric, could it be he's poking fun at the hype surrounding Miley and we're just taking it a little too far, or I am?

BOLLING: What if I like the song?


TANTAROS: You like the video.

BOLLING: No, no, I don't. Actually, here's --

PERINO: You like that version?

BOLLING: Here's the issue -- if you can play that song and don't play that video, because I agree with you, all your points on the cheap, using the naked ladies and all that stuff, and if you can play the song part of it.

TANTAROS: You like it?

BOLLING: I do. Is that terrible?

PERINO: You should make it your ring tone. I dare you.


GUTFELD: You might be right.

TANTAROS: What do you like about it?

BOLLING: I actually love hip-hop. I am --

TANTAROS: This is an insult to hip-hop, though. Somewhere Naughty By Nature is having a nervous breakdown.

BOLLING: "Daily Beast" takes them apart on both sides, both country and hip-hop, I like --

BECKEL: And the representatives of the lowest common denominator --



BECKEL: How you could get that many cretins to show up and do one film at one time? Those are the most disgusting, disgraceful, ugly, distorted and disgusting humanity, one. Two, the idea of merging hip-hop with country is a sin.


BECKEL: This guy -- this guy who is Dionne Warwick's (INAUDIBLE), whoever he is, Buck (ph). Well, buck this, Buck says he wants to marry up in-hop with country western. Are you kidding? Go back and do hip-hop yourself. Get all the naked girls and invite me over.


BOLLING: (INAUDIBLE) if there's a lot of hip-hop making its way into country music --


BECKEL: It's a sad, sad thing.

PERINO: Florida-Georgia line.

GUTFELD: All right.

TANTAROS: Very quickly. This was launched on Larry King's show, by the way, which I think tells you all you need to know.


TANTAROS: It's like channel 72 (ph).


TANTAROS: If it were hot, they would release it somewhere else.

BECKEL: Unbelievable.

GUTFELD: All right. We've got to go. If you're single and looking for love on this Valentine's Day Eve, what are the top cities to find someone, and what's the hourly rate? Dana reveals the list when we come back.

BECKEL: And I'll do the hourly rates.


PERINO: With Valentine's Day tomorrow, many of you watching may be single and ready to mingle. But where in the U.S. do you have the best chances of finding true love?

According to Facebook, the five cities where people have the highest rates of being in relationships are: Colorado Springs, followed by El Paso, Louisville, Fort Worth and San Antonio.

On the other hand, singles are least likely to couple up in big cities like San Francisco, Washington, New York, L.A. and Atlanta.

Now, I pitched this story, kind of worried that maybe you guys wouldn't be into it, but everybody in the commercial break, you like this topic.

GUTFELD: You looking at me?

PERINO: Yes. You said you have something funny.

GUTFELD: I have interesting points to make. San Francisco is high on the list. Has a much higher ratio of men to women, and the reason obviously is the city is sexist. Women are leaving that city because of the chauvinism.

But why is -- the bigger issue, the political issue here is why is love important? Because it protects against life's stress, which affects your health. In a sense, love is health care for your soul which makes it a right. And it's unfair that some people get more love than others.

A stock broker may have a wife and a girlfriend, but there may be some poor union guy who has nothing. So it is time that we make it a right and redistribute love. Go to the 1 percent of the beloved and force them to have relations with the 99 percent.

PERINO: There's a love inequality gap.

TANTAROS: Bob has been redistributing love all over the country, since like what 19 --

BECKEL: Since the late 1800 --

PERINO: Bob, you don't like this list.

BECKEL: I don't like it. I've been in every one of these places.
Greg is right. I won't say -- I'm looking at these cities. And if I were you guys, see you do real well, you go to Colorado Springs and see how well you do that. Boys, you're going to have a great time.

Or El Paso, El Paso, Texas, that's another place. Now, if you don't mind getting married at 13, go to El Paso -- that's nice.

GUTFELD: What are you doing?

BECKEL: Fort Worth, that is a great place to go.

The bottom five are the best places I've ever been to pick up women -- San Francisco, Washington, New York, Los Angeles, Atlanta.

PERINO: But this is for long term relation. This is for people looking for long-term relationships.

BECKEL: What are they?

PERINO: Andrea, ever know anybody who left New York City or Washington, D.C. to go to another place to see if they could have better luck there?

TANTAROS: Yes, all the time, because in New York City, they have Patty Stanger from "The Millionaire Matchmaker" on Bravo, called BBDers, bigger, better deal guys.

So, if there's more women to men, like in San Francisco, Washington, New York, L.A., all of these cities which are more liberal, Bob, so there's more people and more liberal women willing to do away with conservative values.

BECKEL: That's exactly right, nothing wrong with it.

TANTAROS: Guys have more options, so they just move on to the next one. If they don't get what they want for one night, they can just find another one around the corner.

It's the conservative cities that are trending more traditional relationships and most women who leave New York City and these big cities do end up finding guys.

PERINO: I hope that's true. Eric, if you want to increase your odds of meeting somebody, because you're not necessarily going to meet somebody on an airplane.

BOLLING: I'm zero right now, I'm married.

PERINO: I didn't know any of these things because I've been married for 17 years, but that kind of dated myself -- would you leave? Say you had never met Adrienne, would you have left New York City to find true love somewhere else?

BOLLING: No, no, no. I think it has to open. You can't seek it out.
It's going to happen to you when you least expect it.

In relationships, Andrea is right. It tends to be the Southern cities, because they are more traditional the way they do things. They stay together. In the cities, the northern bigger cities, they end up having a lot of different values, whatever.

You want to find a section hot city, find one with great food, nice weather and great beautiful surroundings -- Miami, New Orleans, San Francisco and Dallas. That's hot.

BECKEL: Let me just say in defense of my man here, he's been married.
But if you were single and as rich as he is and as sort of good looking as he is in New York City, he could get in every block.

PERINO: No. But, Bob, this is for long-term relationships.


PERINO: I should have briefed Bob.

OK, directly ahead --

GUTFELD: Let's don't debrief him.

PERINO: Don't worry.

Is all the relentless cold, snow and ice this year giving you a bad case of the winter blues? If so, then you could be suffering from what's called seasonal affective disorder. Is it a real illness or just general depression from the weather? Let's debate next on "The Five."


BECKEL: Yo. Old Man Winter is wreaking havoc across the country.
The deadly storm that pounded the South is now barreling across the mid- Atlantic and the Northeast, dumping huge amounts of snow and ice in its path, and it's not over yet. Eric, for example, got run over by a snowplow today; he got all wet.

We've all heard of cabin fever, but now some psychiatrists are claiming the severe bout of winter is leading to a type of depression known as seasonal affective disorder or SAD.

Didn't you have this diagnosis? And you said you were affected by this.

TANTAROS: Yes, I have SAD. I want to admit it right here on this show. I self-diagnosed freshman year of college. I think it's real. I absolutely think it's real. And to prove it's real, if you go into any of those nutrition centers, the GNCs, all the vitamin D is wiped out. People are trying to get that sunlight that they don't naturally get in the spring and summertime. Most people are just happier in warmer states and warmer climates, and I'm not happy right now.

BECKEL: Good. I can tell you're not.

Well, Greg, you're never happy. So does it make any difference whether it's winter or summer?

GUTFELD: No. It has no effect on me whatsoever. Weather has no effect, but I do agree. It does -- it's an added challenge to your day, so that just makes you more irritable.

But I always have a problem when people add "disorder" to things, like you're sad so now it's a disorder. It's a disorder made for chat shows, and it always comes up at this time. And there are products that are sold, these lights. I did a story on it years ago.

PERINO: I have one.

GUTFELD: You had a SAD light?

GUTFELD: That's pretty funny.

PERINO: When I lived in England.

BOLLING: Did it work?


GUTFELD: That's too bad. Anyway.

BECKEL: Well, Dana, tell us about your SAD light. Did it...

GUTFELD: It's a problem of an affluent society.

BECKEL: How long did you say the sun was up in the winter in England?

PERINO: In Northern England when I lived there, like, the sun, what I remember is it would rise around 9:30, 9:45 in the morning and be dark by 3.

GUTFELD: I would (ph) have started drinking.

PERINO: So that's why -- the thing is I've decided that this is actually mind over matter and that it's natural in the winter to want to sort of hibernate, sleep. It's what you're supposed -- we're meant to just chill out. You know, can't be happy and up all the time like when it's a bright, beautiful sunny day. The most important thing you can do is exercise.

BECKEL: Well, there you go. That's...

PERINO: But it's hard to go out and walk in this stuff, so you've got to get a DVD like Jane Fonda or something.

BECKEL: You've been -- now you've had a bad day today with that snowplow plowing you over.

BOLLING: Snow blower. It dumped a whole pile of snow on me.

Look, I've been getting up at 3 a.m. in the morning to try to beat these -- these storms. Frankly, I'm sick of it. I'm shoveling 12 inches of global warming off my driveway for the fifth time this year. It probably is a compilation of everything. It's the -- you know, it's less light; it's more difficult to get through a day; you know, vitamin D. I think it's for real.

BECKEL: Well, let me tell you something. I sit here as a former patient of Dr. Norman Rosenthal, who created SAD.

BOLLING: Really?

BECKEL: Yes. And he actually has a patent on the lights, too. He's at the National Institute of Health in Bethesda. I went to him for about a year, because I had the most difficult time to stop drinking, to maintain your sobriety, in my first early years of sobriety, was the winter. And I went to see him, because he said that this -- there was a kick on you for you -- because you were enclosed. Most places you'd go out to get a drink and just get out of it. And I was very taken with it. He's exactly right.
I felt much more likely to drink in the winter than I did any other time of the year.

PERINO: Now you just watch TV.

GUTFELD: But you know what's funny? Every type of weather is an excuse for drinking.


GUTFELD: It's sunny. We've got to go out. It's a great day to drink. And then it's freezing out. You know, we've got to go to that bar with the fireplace and get wasted. I used the -- never mind.

BOLLING: It's normal out today.

GUTFELD: It's normal out!

BOLLING: Get a drink.

BECKEL: That's right.

TANTAROS: And SAD isn't the right acronym either, because there's been so much snow. It shouldn't be called SAD. It should be called PISSED. Like "Damn, more snow!"

BECKEL: Can you imagine if you were in Norway, where they don't have any sun at all? All they do is produce kids and divorces.

PERINO: I would never go to Norway. Never.

BECKEL: OK. "One More Thing" is up next.

PERINO: And fish oil.


BOLLING: All righty. Time for "One More Thing," and Andrea kicks it off.

TANTAROS: This is a very scientific edition of "The Five," and to continue with that, there's new research out that shows that men officially have larger brains than women, larger just in size. It doesn't mean you're smarter, Eric Bolling, obviously.

BOLLING: Size matters.

TANTAROS: So if you look at the picture right there, you can see the red area is where men are predominantly stronger. Red is women, I'm sorry.
Blue is where men are predominantly stronger, and this contributes to not just health issues, but look at how different the brains are.

BECKEL: God knows.

TANTAROS: I mean, women and men strive for equality, but they're not the same people. And, of course, women are more emotional and all this stuff. Anyway, very fascinating to see the look at the differences between men and women.

BOLLING: Which one was bigger again? Can't remember.

TANTAROS: In size.


TANTAROS: Doesn't mean smarter.

BOLLING: Bob, you're up.

BECKEL: I just -- the difference between men and women, men are from Mars; women are from Venus. Good God, is that right.

All right. I want to just give a little shout-out to the people who actually go out there in the middle of the night and try to get us shoveled out, and there's people who go out in the snow plows, people who take ambulances around to help people, the police, the firefighters who do it.
All those people, not only do they do that, we ought to thank you for what you do and not yell at you as some people do. And also keep in mind these are all government employees.

BOLLING: Yes, very good. Well done, Bob. Agreed, by the way.

Dana, you're up.

PERINO: The stage manager goes, "Oh, God." That was the best.

OK. I wanted to -- I'll do a shout-out, which is a banned phrase, to the Intelligence Squared debate. I went last night to a debate held in the College of New York City on the Upper West Side. It was really good.

It's an Oxford-style debate. It was started by the Rosenkrantz Foundation, which initiated the debate series, and they continue to do maintenance report. Bob Rosenkrantz kicked it off last night.

The topic was Snowden was justified, and if you look down below on the screen there, You can go, and you can watch that debate and all the other debates. They've done Obama care, and upcoming they have one on Russia. And it's a really good way to keep informed, and I appreciate them hosting it.

BOLLING: Good group. Greg, you're up.

GUTFELD: I haven't done a banned phrase in a while. Today's word:
"February." Why do we have a month where we have that stupid "R" in there?

PERINO: I agree.

GUTFELD: You need to explain it to kids why you don't pronounce the "R" and why the word is spelt that way. I say you change the name from February to Boringuary. Boringuary. It is a boring month. At least for me.

BOLLING: Where can we get the book?

GUTFELD: Oh! "Not Cool."

BECKEL: You'll be hearing a lot about that.

BOLLING: OK. Snap Chat. OK. OK, I'm on Snap Chat. Love Snap Chat.
Love the app. I have a problem, though. Every time you want to Snap Chat everyone in the list, you have to press every single name. So if you have
4,000 or 5,000, you have to press that button 5,000 times.

Snap Chat, I beg of you, please get a "Snap Chat all." And I know why you're not doing it. You're afraid of someone Snap Chatting everyone when they're drunk, but maybe you just figure out a way to get around that.

TANTAROS: EB2016 is begging you, Snap Chat.

BOLLING: And I'm going to Snap Chat a little behind the scenes, a couple pictures from back here.

All right. Don't forget to set your DVRs so you never miss an episode of "The Five." We'll see you back here tomorrow.

Content and Programming Copyright 2014 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2014 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.