Sign in to comment!


The Five

Global confusion over fate of missing Malaysian Airlines jet

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

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

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


TANTAROS: Six days now since Flight 370 out of Malaysia went missing, and it seems like the only thing we know is that there's global confusion over exactly what happened.

Yesterday, satellite images released by China gave hope that there was finally an answer, and then there was a report that the flight may have been in air for four hours longer after it went off the radar. But Malaysia said both reports aren't true.


TRANSPORT MINISTER: Those reports are inaccurate. On the Chinese satellite imagery, we deployed our SS but found nothing. The images were released by mistake and did not show any debris from MH370.


TANTAROS: Earlier, the White House said a new additional search area may be opened in the Indian Ocean.

Now, Bob, for meet biggest question here is foul play or fumbling of maintenance. But here's what I don't get, right? So, there's a lot of talk about depressurization, if something would have happened that this plane would have gone down.

To me, it seems the biggest issue is, if that airplane was depressurized those pilots flying at about 40,000 feet would not have had time to stop and turn off both the transponders, right? They would have gone down and passed out in 10 seconds, according to commercial airline pilots. So, to me, it's the issue of all the transponders were off. That doesn't make sense. That's why I'm leaning towards potential foul play.

BOB BECKEL, CO-HOST: Well, you know, I don't -- believe me, I don't know about this to make a comment about the transponders, but I do know it's very unusual for them to be turned off. There's two of them, right? That transponders.

Now, if that leads you to believe that this is terrorism, I still get back to what I said yesterday. If it's terrorism, why haven't they taking credit for it, right? Usually these terrorist organizations take credit or they take it the plane and land it some place and hold it for ransom. But by now, six days in, it seems to me you would have heard from. Not a peep out of any of the terrorist organizations that are well known.

GREG GUTFELD, CO-HOST: But, you know, there's one exception to that. I felt the same way, but then I was thinking, maybe it's because it's not the end game.


GUTFELD: I mean, why -- why spill the beans if you've got other things coming?

The problem is, the story exposes a real huge weakness in shows like this. Commentary shows we can only go so far without facts, and theories are not facts, you know? Theory right now is all we have to fill this giant empty basin, that vacuous huge bucket of mystery that we want to fill up every day and we can't.

This could be the most important story ever, or it could be one of many tragic accidents that literary century of air travel. Baffling in the age of surveillance and selfies and satellites that we can't answer this questions, and I think that's what freaks us out and what keeps us thinking and constantly wondering if it's some fantastic answer as opposed to something tragic and mundane.

BECKEL: Well, you know, quickly on that. It seems to me that we have so much more to find -- ways to find out, debris and the rest of it. The fact -- if this had happened 20, 30 years ago, my guess is if it was in the ocean, you would have picked it up. The fact that it's just disappeared is what -- that's the hole that fascinates me.

TANTAROS: Dana, I think what's also very dismaying is that not that we have a lack of information, but it seems like the Malaysian government has been giving us mixed signals. Why are we finding out, for example, just now that the Malaysian military -- from the Malaysian military that the 777 took a hard left when they were initially searching right? It just seems like they are not getting their story straight. So there's suspicion with what's going on by Malaysian officials.

DANA PERINO, CO-HOST: Yes, the worst thing you can do in a crisis communication situation is to have conflicting stories because then you -- you have a lack of confidence from the consumer and also from your allies and other countries that are trying to help them.

I am glad that the Chinese are involved. I don't necessarily buy the theory that the Chinese are holding back information because they don't want people to understand what their air defense is like in the Pacific. I don't think that sounds plausible.

You hear all sorts of conspiracy theories coming forward, which is not the most helpful for the families but because we're human beings, we try to figure things out. We want to solve problems, we want to know. That's why we keep talking about it even though we still lack information.

TANTAROS: And, Eric, "The Wall Street Journal" just clarified that in fact it wasn't information coming from Rolls Royce, which was the engine inside the airline. It was U.S. officials, you know, that speculated based on data that this plane flew for four hours, which, again, I hate to play the speculation game, but that could have landed the plane somewhere in a region like Pakistan where it could arguably have been flying below the grid where it wasn't picked up on radar.

BOLLING: Right. Yes, four hours after they lost the transponders, and that was initially a report in The Wall Street Journal said it was based on the Rolls Royce engines pinging. It turns out that wasn't, but they are still standing by because there's some satellite data that U.S. officials were picking up.

So, a couple of thoughts very quickly. You're right, Greg, it's terrible to speculate on these things. But maybe you can learn something by talking about them.

You had mentioned earlier in the week, maybe it's a new type of explosive that a terrorist group may be wanting to testing out and that may be why they don't take credit just yet, or if they want to take the plane somewhere else, land it and use it for another use. Now, that's conspiracy theory, that's conjecture, I get it.

Here's not -- this part is not conspiracy theory or conjecture. The NSA is capable on spying to all of us to the tunes of billions upon billions of data mining points, they know where we are, when we are, who was saying it to, but they can't figure out where a plane leaving a known terrorist hotbed with tickets purchased by an Iranian with fake passports on it going to another terrorist hotbed through China, they don't know where that is, that's a problem.

Let me just -- I'll just say one more thing. It costs about $2 billion a year to have every single plane in the air at any given time tracked by satellite. So, you don't have to worry about radar. You don't have to worry about ground-to-airplane transmission, tracked by satellite, $2 billion a year.

The amount of travelers, around 3 billion commercial travelers a year. It's around 60 cents per occupied seat you'll never ever lose an airplane ever again.

TANTAROS: But it sounded like if we're talking about the airplane version of OnStar, Malaysian Airlines didn't subscribe, Greg, to the full monitoring package. Shocker: third world airline.

The former TSA deputy director has thrown out a theory that someone with ill-intent possibly broached the cockpit. A number of pilots have sent e-mails, I've spoken to a lot of them. They seem to agree with this.

Listen to this theory.


TOM BLANK, FORMER TSA DEPUTY DIRECTOR: If there was a peaceful cockpit breach, but that I mean one without weapons or explosion, that would indicate the involvement of a flight crew in helping a member, a passenger with flight experience to take over that cockpit. And almost assuredly, no matter what happens, we're going to find out that the cockpit was breached and someone with ill-intent took that plane either to a tragic end or to a still unanswered mysterious outcome.


TANTAROS: OK. We already know there's questionable issues, Greg, with the pilot. He's breached the cockpit before with two women, let them hang out there for four hours and shows a lack in judgment but also they didn't make a mayday call, OK? They didn't get on HF, high frequency radio.

That strikes other pilots as strange because the mantra of a pilot is protect the cockpit at all costs, and they didn't seem to send off any alarm bells.

GUTFELD: Yes, to one thing that he said about the possibility about landing elsewhere, there has not been a confirmed sighting of this plane anywhere, which makes me believe that that did not happen and that the other option, the tragic end, which is either, you know, a catastrophic event in the air, whether it'd be terror or accident, occurred, which goes to the point about better tracking and mechanisms like OnStar for a plane is necessary.

That leads to the next question which is, OK, is it a single act of terror or part of something greater? Or if it's an accident, is it part of a flaw that is also in other planes? That's why it's so important to find out this stuff now because we have planes in the air.

BECKEL: Yes, what were you saying -- is it relatively accepted that there was four hours of flight --

BOLLING: No. Let's put it the this way. "The Wall Street Journal" is staying by their initial report that -- so the plane took off. It flew for an hour, and then the transponders stopped pinging the towers, they lost the plane at that point. "The Wall Street Journal" says it went on for another four hours based on some data from a satellite that they have obtained, originally report as coming from the inside of the Rolls-Royce engines, corrected to them, standing by the four-hour flight after the pings stopped.

BECKEL: So, they are sticking with that story.

BOLLING: They are staying with the story, but they're saying it's coming from satellite, not from the engine. The question would be, if it were the engine, why don't they find the engine?

TANTAROS: And, Dana, if it would have hit the ground, there would have been a signal send and it's called an ELT, emergency locator transmitter, if there would have been impact. If it would have gone into the ocean, may be not. So, that's another question.

If it's on the ground somewhere and it crashed we would have known about it. However, if it would be, say a potential hijacking or something like that, they could have flown under the radar and that signal wouldn't have gone off.

TANTAROS: It's always interesting, when you -- just when you think the human race has reached a point where we know everything, we actually realize just how small we actually are on the planet and how we have a lot of advancements but we can't know everything.

And people who think that it's just so easy to find something on the ground, it's like, you know, if you watch a nature documentary and they fly over the Amazon and you look, oh, my gosh, I had no idea just how small we are.

So I actually still believe it could be found.

GUTFELD: That's for you.


PERINO: I just wanted to make one point, too, about the Malaysians and their press -- and the press coverage of this event. I think that just underscores how important it is to have reporters who are steeped in the knowledge about plane travel or about a Malaysian government, about searches, because you can actually trust information that you get from a "Reuters," a "Wall Street Journal," and "A.P,," and their expertise has been invaluable in this in making sure we can keep calm about -- you know, not flying off the rail thinking that it is terrorism and then causing an overreaction.

I think that the news media coverage of it has been very good. There's just not a lot to report.

BECKEL: The one thing you could see, if this was a mountain region, you could understand why a plane would be lost, right? I mean, that would make some sense, it would take a long time. But this is out in the open sea, which means even though -- if this thing went straight down, just straight down, you still would have had a debris field, right?

So that's the thing that's so baffling here. There's a lot of pieces to those flights and a lot of floatable things, and the fact that these planes and boats and satellites looking for it and found nothing, that I think, at least for me, is --

TANTAROS: See, this is what doesn't -- I can't grapple with again, depressurization, those pilots, everyone would have had to pass out. Somebody had to turn off those transponders, because there's so many backups, so many reassurances. So they could have arguably flown off the transmitters, flown for hours under radar and landed. They could be Myanmar, Nicobar Islands.

I mean, I hate to speculate they could be holding the plane hostage, negotiating for ransom, Greg, maybe that's why they haven't announced who committed this, maybe there's something in the cargo space they are trying to negotiate. I mean, that bay of Malacca and region, Bay of Bengal, there are areas that maybe satellites cannot pick up.

BOLLING: Throw one more quick, I know we got to go. These planes, these 777 cost $260 million each, each. So, think of a fleet how much that's worth. Those are insured. The insurance companies, you want to do this? The insurance companies might suggest that all these planes that cost $271 million, $270 million have that satellite hookup so they never ever have to lose an airplane again, and that may add a touch of a cost.

And all the free market people out there will say it may add costs, but let it happen from the business. Let the airlines say we're going to do this to keep our insurance rates lower. Not a bad way to do it.

TANTAROS: Well, more questions than we have answers. We have much more on the plane mystery ahead, including why the world is so fascinated by this story.

And up next, the administration is having a hard time, again, giving answers to lawmakers about ObamaCare. So, are they worried that the truth will hurt Democrats in November? That's up next.


PERINO: Despite the big loss Tuesday night for Democrats down in Florida, Nancy Pelosi's confident that ObamaCare will not hurt Democrats in November.


REP. NANCY PELOSI (D), CALIFORNIA: It's time for Republicans to end their obsession, which is destroying the Affordable Care Act. I think Republicans are wasting time using that as their electoral issue.


PERINO: The administration meanwhile is having more problems with numbers once again. Secretary Sebelius couldn't seem to muster an answer on how many enrollees have actually paid for ObamaCare.

Listen to this.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You mentioned in your opening remarks 4.2 million people have signed up in the exchange and I want to get to some of the concerns that others have.

How many of those that have signed up that have enrolled in ObamaCare have paid their premium?

KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, HHS SECRETARY: I can't tell you that, sir, because I don't know that.


PERINO: OK. Riddle me this, Bolling.

A company that has a lot of product that's going in and out, sales, every morning, the CEO gets a report as to who is buying, what they are buying, did they buy Snickers with that, did you up sell them on the tequila? All of that information is available.

Is it possible that they don't have this information?

BOLLING: Very possible because they are morons. I mean, almost -- not even big companies, like Apple can probably tell you to the iPhone how many they have sold, where they have sold it and how much money is outstanding, what their balances are and where are your receivables by the hour.

The problem is this, remember the big fix they had to call in everyone for help. They called in Google. They called in West Coast tech experts to help them just to get the thing online.

So there are probably so many band-aids and bubble gum and popsicle sticks holding the thing together, they really don't know and that's very problematic.

The numbers likely are going to be a fraction of the 4.2 million that they claim. A lot of that are probably, you know, Medicaid people who are looking for help and a lot of them are probably who just haven't paid yet.

BECKEL: Well, there's a group who does know how many have paid and that's the insurance injuries.

BOLLING: Aggregately.

BECKEL: Aggregately. That's right.

BOLLING: They're all up there somewhere.

BECKEL: So there was something to be at the back end of this system that's not yet working that would report that. But the insurance companies have that information. They say they provided some of that information to the White House or to HHS.

My question is, why not just find out from the insurance companies? You just said, the CEO gets a report every morning. There's "X" number of health care organizations, how many have paid?


PERINO: Yes, the insurance association, why not ask them to just voluntarily provide us the information. That wouldn't be hard.

GUTFELD: Do you know what's really neat? Do you ever go on a website and have a little counter, why don't they have a little counter?

TANTAROS: They don't want the little counter.

GUTFELD: They don't want the little -- they don't want to know. By the way, we do know that 6.2 million people lost their health care. We know that. How do we not know the other stuff, which leads me to this conclusion that -- and this is conspiracy, that Sebelius is a plant, a double agent hired by libertarians to expose the folly of big government drones. I've never seen a person more oblivious to inflicting harm than Moe from the "Three Stooges."

PERINO: I like it. I like it.

Andrea, Pelosi.


PERINO: So, I can understand how she wants Republicans to not focus on ObamaCare because she thinks it's bad for Republicans. I mean, I'm trying to understand the psychological warfare.

TANTAROS: Are you asking me for a severance what's going on in Nancy Pelosi's brain>

PERINO: Yes, if you could give that a shot.

TANTAROS: Yes, I don't think I can. I'm not equipped to do that. Of course, she doesn't want on anyone focusing on ObamaCare and I think that the worst thing that could happen is the insurance companies come out and give an actual number of people who have paid.

My guess, Dana, is that the White House is saying please shut up and don't say anything until the March 31st deadline.

It's like the student council is running this thing, and they are the ones that they have been waiting for, so they told us, so they can continue to push it back because they can keep delaying it. I mean, they can just do it. I still say it's a constitutional crisis. Republicans should talk about it every chance that they get.

PERINO: Bob, this is one thing I don't understand. So the ObamaCare fix it messaging from Alex Sink down in Florida didn't necessarily help her win the election. There's lots of other factors I understand in that, but Nancy Pelosi doesn't have a hope of getting Democrats back in power in the house, so why is she continuing to fall on this particular sword? Is it because of loyalty to the president?

BECKEL: Well, partially that, but also I think a little bit of this -- you know, Nancy Pelosi is not -- I've known her for a long time. This is not a stupid woman.

PERINO: Of course not.

BOLLING: She got a good -- talk about conspiracy, she figures these things out. I think what she is doing is getting the Republicans -- the Democrats said I want particularly is to see the Republicans, to buy Eric's notion, to stick just on ObamaCare, just ObamaCare, because you do that, and you're not going to get the kind of win you should have.

And one of the things we've learned now is more polling data coming in from the Florida races that very few people determined in exit polls that they voted because of ObamaCare, and if it was that big of deal it would have been a massive loss.

PERINO: But, Bob, that's why Jolly actually didn't just run on ObamaCare, and when Boehner talked about the -- that particular race he brought it out again. I think actually the Republicans have seen the same polling and they agree.

BOLLING: Can I just add -- I'm sorry, Greg -- Republicans, anyone up for re-election has to stay on ObamaCare and really, really hit this home?

As you make your points, and as these elections go, '14, '16, number one, you have a chance to get the House and Senate and maybe even be able to repeal it if you get a president in '16. But as you go along ObamaCare costs are going to skyrocket. They've already -- they've already doubled twice since the original CBO estimate. As the young people aren't signing up, especially young people, 25 percent, they are expecting 40 percent signups of young people. There are 25 percent.

Costs are going to skyrocket. The government has to pick up those costs, and you can go, look, we told you about ObamaCare. Now look what you're doing to the deficit, too. You're busting all the budgets.

This is a win. Don't look a gift horse in a mouth.


PERINO: Don't forget the Medicare cuts that are coming, too.

You wanted to say something?

GUTFELD: No, I just wanted to say when you see the defense of ObamaCare shows that this has become a bona fide religion which requires 100 percent adherence to the faith because hopefully when you die, you're going to get 72 exemptions.

BECKEL: Let's go back to Florida for a second. If there ever was a hotter period than right now to run on ObamaCare, against ObamaCare it's now, and it didn't make that race the win. It was a very small win. They pointed out, they ran on a lot of things.

One of the things Jolly did say and I think this is important for every Republican, is we can't just be against ObamaCare. We have to come up with something -- some tangible realistic proposals to replace it which Republicans won't do.

BOLLING: Here's the thing, Bob. The Republicans are going to hold the House for sure. There's a shot at the Senate and in '16 if something happens, if you have a Rand Paul or Ted Cruz or Chris Christie or whomever in the White House, you can repeal it.

BECKEL: You're not going to repeal it. Too many people will be in it.

TANTAROS: This bill is Nancy Pelosi's. I mean, let's remember how it got done.

PERINO: It's a good point.

TANTAROS: This wasn't President Obama's. It was Nancy Pelosi's bill. She threw the gauntlet down. She did her job.

GUTFELD: Her gavel.

PERINO: She didn't read it.

TANTAROS: She didn't read it, but she got it through and she got it passed. So she personally has an investment in this bill.

PERINO: That's a good point.

TANTAROS: But I also think it's not Republicans talking about the ObamaCare. It's talking about the crisis and credibility gap of Democrats when it comes to this huge law.

So it's not just individual mandate, employer mandate. It's they lied. They don't have any credibility on this, and they don't have any credibility on all these other issues.

I think Republicans got to broaden it in that way.

BECKEL: Can you tell me where these 6.2 million people who lost -- I presume they have no health insurance now. Wouldn't you assume that they would be --

PERINO: That's not the case, Bob, actually, because of what we were talking about yesterday. The people -- this whole bill was passed so we could help people without insurance get insurance. A lot of those people that lost their insurance are responsible people that wanted health care because it gave them the security that they felt they needed for their family. So they are part of that 4.2. So, what, 4.2, that have signed up under ObamaCare. Some of them are in that pool.

That means we still haven't insured the uninsured which was the point of doing this. So what the Democrats have done is wrecked an industry, basically they told consumers -- you're living in a nice beautiful house, that's nice and cozy, but you're going to moved in this framed up contraption over here. It will be a house one day. Sorry, but the contractor had to cancel a lot of the work.

BECKEL: Are you equating the American health insurance industry to something big and beautiful as an old house. It was a wreck. It was a rip-off wreck.

PERINO: You think that it's better today?

BECKEL: Yes. The insurance companies --


PERINO: Prove it! Prove it!

BECKEL: I can't prove it.

PERINO: Prove it.

BECKEL: I can't prove it any more than you can prove that most of those signups are people who did not ---


GUTFELD: I love it how they go, yes, we've eliminated the middle man but they replaced it with like Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.

BECKEL: You're not defending the insurance industry, are you?

GUTFELD: Yes, I am.

BECKEL: You are?

GUTFELD: Compared to what you have replaced it with is horrifying.

BECKEL: The insurance companies are there.

TANTAROS: And if it was so terrible, then why are you mandating insurance companies keep these crappy plans?

BECKEL: The crappy plans were before ObamaCare.


BECKEL: Yes, they were. They were horrible plans.

TANTAROS: The administration has commanded --


BECKEL: Bait and switch.

TANTAROS: Bob, that's not true.

BECKEL: Are you defending the insurance company, too?


TANTAROS: Why did the administration tell the insurance company --


PERINO: We obviously love talking about this topic. I had another one that we did not get to which I'll keep for tomorrow.


PERINO: Coming up, do you have a hard time saying no to people? If so, Greg is going to help make that easier, next.


GUTFELD: "The Wall Street Journal" interviewed some business women on how hard it is to say no. They said it's hard, poor things. Fact is, we all say yes, not simply to avoid awkwardness but to avoid being disliked. Since grade school, most yeses are fueled by fear of exclusion.

As social animals, we fear being alone. Sadly, this fear infects us as adults and adults in power who are supposed to say no as part of their damn job.

Where does fear of no lead? Detroit, Stockton, Harrisburg, San Bernardino. Behind every bankrupt city is a big fat yes, as cowardice and greed killed the will to say no. Yes is deadlier than dope. Countries that say no are winning. Countries that say yes are on the decline.

Look at Europe, a map of agreeable yes men, slaves to tolerance and fearful of reprisal, reducing their military to bolster their nanny state. They emasculate the muscular no in favor of the Mary Poppins yes. And after so many firm noes given to Germany, the USSR and Iraq among others, we, the United States of no have fallen in love with yes, too -- yes to a bloated government that replaces the AWOL parental no, yes to feeling instead of thinking. We cut defense when defense is just no with a gun.

It's time to reanimate the word no and say it more often. Besides, soon we may have no choice. There will come a time when we won't have the means to say yes.

BECKEL: Man, was that a stretch or what?

GUTFELD: What are you talking about? You couldn't follow that?

BECKEL: I followed it. But the Europeans thing, that's the answer now?

GUTFELD: That's true. That is an area where everybody says yes to everything and they have no money.

PERINO: And now, they can't get to the important things.

BECKEL: Can we bring it down to why people individually have a harder time saying no?

GUTFELD: Well, you never say no, Bob.

BECKEL: That's correct.

GUTFELD: This is why you're Bob Beckel.

BECKEL: That's correct.

GUTFELD: You're a man who has said yes to everything.

BECKEL: I'm the first to admit it, too. I'm a softie for everything that comes to me, whether it's a charity, whether it's another business, whatever it is.

GUTFELD: Is charity the name of a stripper?

BECKEL: No, I hard a time -- well, yes, as a matter of fact, several. But that's not the point.

The point is I think instinctively human beings don't like to say no. They just don't like it. It doesn't have anything to do with the nanny state or socialism.

GUTFELD: Yes, it does.

BECKEL: And all those professors out there, all those liberals.

GUTFELD: If Detroit has said no, Detroit would be around.

BECKEL: What about New York? It didn't say no, it's got big contracts, too. It's still around.

GUTFELD: It said no to a lot of things. Now, it's saying yes to a lot of bad things.

BECKEL: Well, I defy you on that one. I mean, there's a lot of places, a lot of cities set big contracts for workers, but I still want to get back to the reason why people are afraid to say no.

TANTAROS: Because I am convinced that every person makes a decision to either look good or avoid looking bad.

BECKEL: Right.

TANTAROS: And that's why people reflexively want to say yes because they don't want to look bad, and they want to look good and, Dana, and I actually have this conversation every single day when we're getting out hair and make up done, because we're asked to do all these things and we don't want to say no and then it comes around and we end up being exhausted or spread to thin. And then we suffer.

So, I set up my own little rule, Dana can say it if she wants. But I always pretend when someone asks me to do something, I pretend like it's that night, would I want to do it?


TANTAROS: And the answer generally is no.

GUTFELD: Well, you know, I admire Dana, because you say no to so many charity events usually involving children, hospital events.


BECKEL: Hospice.


GUTFELD: I'm amazed how cold you can be. You just say no thanks, I'm busy.

PERINO: It's come with age.

GUTFELD: Really?

PERINO: I've learned. I've learned.

Actually, years ago, I had to create a policy for myself that because I hated going to baby showers, and I kept telling these little white lies about why I couldn't go to the baby shower, and then I got caught in the baby shower white lie thing. So, I decided I would just have a principle of no baby showers. It's very -- it's helped a lot and now I've started to apply it to other things and that makes me have the ability to say yes to the things I want to do.

BECKEL: To somebody who says yes to everything, a man who is very generous, what about you?

BOLLING: Let me take it in a little different direction -- parenting. That is the hardest word to do is when your kid comes and says, can I have this, can I go here, can I stay out a little bit longer? To say yes is easy. You want the approval back, but to say no is parenting, and frankly, I don't -- I'm guilty of this as anyone.

PERINO: Is Adrienne good at saying no?

BOLLING: No, neither one of us are very good at saying no, and he knows it and takes advantage of it until it gets to something where you're absolutely forced to say no about stuff, but the best parents are the tough love parents and those are the ones that have the ability to say no.


PERINO: You say no to everything.


TANTAROS: He has no problem saying that.

GUTFELD: At work for example, every night, Gregg Jarrett comes by my office and he goes, hey, do you want to play racquetball? I'm going like, Gregg, it's 2 a.m. he goes no, we'll just go down to the park, and I go, Jarrett, no, no -- strange guy.


BECKEL: You saying no is a big surprise to me.

GUTFELD: I live by that word.

All right. Ahead, do dads --

BOLLING: Racquetball in the park.


GUTFELD: There's not even a racquetball court in the park.

BOLLING: Obviously.

BECKEL: It sounds like a nefarious plot. Never mind.


GUTFELD: All right. Do dads have a right to be in the delivery room when their babies are born even if the moms don't want them to be in there? One judge issued a landmark ruling on this, and you'll hear about that next.


BOLLING: So, do unwed dads have a legal right to be in the delivery room to witness the birth of their child?

No, according to a judge in New Jersey who just issued a landmark ruling in the case of a couple who broke up before the baby was born. The controversial decision says unmarried pregnant women have privacy protections, letting them decide who can be at their hospital bedside. The judge says fathers have no legal right to be in the birthing room, and mothers-to-be don't have to inform the dads when they are in labor.

Now, Bob Beckel, you have a lot of interesting comment on this.

BECKEL: Well, first of all, having been in a delivery room twice, it's a very remarkable thing to do. I also think men don't get enough credit for bringing children into the work. They have to work very hard one night.

But the point here is this guy has every right to be where that child is. It's his child as much as her child. I don't care if they weren't married, if they were separated or if they were divorced. It's his child as much as her child.

And for this judge to get in the middle of this is absolutely obscene. Leave that guy alone. That child is part of that have guy's life.

GUTFELD: Do you feel that way about abortion?

BECKEL: What do you mean?

GUTFELD: Do you feel that you have a voice in a woman having an abortion?

PERINO: The fathers do.

BOLLING: The fathers --

GUTFELD: I'm just curious.

BECKEL: Sure, I would advise them not to having abortion, but I can't ultimately force them to.


BECKEL: But I can tell you this. Any punk judge that's sitting down in New Jersey who says that fathers -- that's their blood sitting in there. What does the judge have something to do like that?

TANTAROS: But then why wouldn't you say -- to Greg's point -- that the dad gets to rule whether or not the woman has an abortion?

BECKEL: You can give advice about abortion, I suppose, but this is a child that is being born, and -- and that is a part of you, and I don't care what their marital status is or what their relation is, you have a right to be there.

TANTAROS: OK. You think -- I'm all for fathers' rights and I totally hear on that and I don't think dads get enough credits and their rights are stripped from them, but does that mean boyfriends can go to -- no matter what happened to the relationship, they can go to every medical visit, they can follow the woman in the room when the child is in her body?

I mean, what if the guy beat her? What if they had a terrible relationship? I mean, that would traumatize me if I'm the woman in the delivery room having the alcoholic ex-boyfriend --

BECKEL: If this judge ruled that this father was an abusive father or drunk or something else, that would make sense. That wasn't the case.

BOLLING: (INAUDIBLE) Dana in this, let me just throw -- I honestly don't know -- I really truly don't know where I stand on this one, but I assume, Bob, as soon as this birth occurs and this is the father, he's going to be financially responsible --


BOLLING: -- for that kid. He may have -- you may have a case on that.

PERINO: And he said he wanted to be.


PERINO: So, the father -- they were dating, she found out she was pregnant, he asked her to marry him, she says yes. But six months later, they broke off the marriage, but she's about to give birth four months later.

He initiated the legal proceedings in order to have parental rights after the baby was born, and this issue of the delivery came up.

One thing about the judge though. Just remember, he's not making this up. He's not legislating from the bench and coming up with policy. He's basing his ruling on previous rules and precedent that other courts and the Supreme Court have laid down.

So if fathers don't like the law, and a lot don't, and I understand why, it actually has to be changed at a different level.

BECKEL: I thought this was a landmark decision in his part.

PERINO: It's the first one, but it's based on the precedent. He's not just making it up. He's looking at other lawsuits and other rulings by the court and basing the law on that.

BECKEL: Do you know the judge's name?

PERINO: Mohammed (ph).

GUTFELD: You know, there you go. It's Mohammed.


PERINO: Come on, come on.


GUTFELD: But wait a second.

BOLLING: That explains it.

GUTFELD: Wait a second, can I just say? Like as a guy I would not be angry over this. I would be relieved.

I do not want this experience. If I want this experience, I will rent the first "Alien" because it would scar my brain for life to see a little wet creature popping out.


BOLLING: I'm going to push back on that a little bit. It's a strange thing, I was there, too.

GUTFELD: What was that game where it popped out?

TANTAROS: If you got your way, Bob, that would mean that sperm donors could argue that they get to be in the delivery room for their kids. Like this is -- that would be a very dangerous precedent, and it doesn't interfere with the baby's rights.

BOLLING: I'm not sure, because I think when --

TANTAROS: And the doctor should be allowed to throw out whoever he wants --


BECKEL: If you sign away your rights --

PERINO: How do you know that?

BOLLING: Because you do.

PERINO: How do you know? Prove it.

BECKEL: Because my brother has had two kids by sperm.


BOLLING: There's a big case going on a sperm donor but he didn't do it through the proper channels --

PERINO: Yes, I know. I'm just busting your chops.

BOLLING: And, but yes, when you do -- anyway, so I hear.

Coming up --


PERINO: -- a lot about it.

BOLLING: -- the worldwide fascination regarding the whereabouts of that missing Malaysian plane. People glued to their TV sets all week for anything to what happened. The phenomenon of the unsolved mystery, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) BECKEL: The plane mystery, even though we're no closer now to find out what happened, people still can't seem to get enough of this story. Every media outlet on the planet seems to be covering this.


MEGYN KELLY, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: FOX News alert. We have breaking news tonight on a missing commercial jet.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Into thin air. The mystery of Malaysia Air Flight 370 deepens as dozens of ships and planes launch a new search overnight.

BRIAN WILLIAMS, NBC NEWS ANCHOR: On our broadcast tonight, way off course. The mystery has deepened in the search for that missing aircraft.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What really happened to Flight 370? Six days in, confusion reigns.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Another theory, a meteor took the plane down. There was a known meteor in the area at the time the plane took off, so could it have hit the plane?


BECKEL: I'll tell you, baby, that is a real reach. It is interesting. Forget the facts about this, with what all these people were saying. What is it that has kept the attention of people, and it's true, it has. I mean, it's obviously showed up, and a lot of people are watching news stories about it. Why?

BOLLING: The word that was common in every one of those news stories, I believe, was "mystery." Everyone loves the mystery because they love the solving of the mystery, the final money shot, if you will, to find out what really happened.

So all the lead-up, the buildup, the bigger the buildup, the bigger the solution, and it's this collective sigh of relief. Finally, they figured it out. I was right; I knew it.

Meanwhile, you've said everything, every possible scenario. We're going to find out what happened to this plane fairly soon, and we'll all look back and go, wow.

BECKEL: That's a good point. Maybe it's like a -- it's like a football bet. People are sitting around home saying, "I bet you, I bet you," to try to figure out what the answer to this is to see if you're going to be right.

PERINO: Except that we do have 239 lives that were lost, and I think, unfortunately, a lot of these stories, we don't know anything about the victims. Of course, there are only a few Americans on the plane, but still the families of the people that -- the families that lost loved ones are really suffering right now.

I think also the other thing is that it is -- it is possible that we have a lack of imagination about what could have happened. We're trying to pinpoint exactly what happened to a plane based on things that we already know. Could be that we don't know what happened, and that's why it's interesting.

BECKEL: Let me ask both Greg and you this question. What is it -- this is not an American airplane. I would understand. If it was a U.S. -- I understand the fascination in this country, but it's Malaysia. Is that - - am I just being too parochial about this?

GUTFELD: No. I think -- I think it is easier to hypothesize about something that is far away. If this was in the United States, I think we would be way more careful about the possibility that there are grief- stricken individuals who are watching this, and we would be safely curious because we're lucky to be curious because we're here. They're curious because they are grief-stricken.

PERINO: Right.

GUTFELD: And I think if it were in the states, it would probably be different. I don't know.

BECKEL: You seem to know more about this airplane, because your brother is a pilot, I know. What's the social interest side of this, the mystery side of this?

TANTAROS: You know, it's a good question. Because when it first happened I wasn't really paying attention all weekend until I had to pay attention, and we talked about it here. Now I'm really into it.

I think it's because we're so used to getting answers and knowing everything about everything these days. I mean, we have handheld devices that tell us things rapid fast, and cases are cracked very quickly. There's very few mysteries. This is stranger than fiction, and I think people are so used to getting all the answers that they want -- they want the answers, and the fact that we really have very few is mindboggling.

BOLLING: One little twist to this tune. Everyone flies. Everyone knows what it's like to be in an airplane...

TANTAROS: Or knows somebody who does...

BOLLING: ... and go, oh, my gosh.

TANTAROS: Or their dad, or their mom.

BECKEL: There's a fascination with planes. You guys weren't around. I think I covered, it Amelia Earhart when she was lost in the Pacific. That still, to this day, they haven't found that plane. And they're still looking for it. And my guess -- and the Bermuda Triangle was always an interesting place. They lost some planes in there and never came back.

And "One More Thing" is up next.


TANTAROS: It's time now for "One More Thing." Dana, kick it off.

PERINO: OK. So you know I love country music, and some people here don't like country music. They should. But, Eric, I thought you would like this. "MoneyMaker" put out their list for entertainers. You know who's No. 1? Taylor Swift. Taylor Swift at almost $40 million. Kenny Chesney, $32 million, and then Luke Bryant at No. 8 with $22 million. So...

BECKEL: Why can't he buy a better hat?

PERINO: Who? That's a good-looking -- that's a great hat. That's a great artist.

TANTAROS: You would look good in that hat, Robert.

BOLLING: You know, America loves -- loves country music.

PERINO: America loves country music.



GUTFELD: All right.


BECKEL: All right. Take a look at this chart. And it's sort of interesting. The combined income of the people who are on minimum wage in this country, one million -- I wouldn't laugh about this: 1,085,000 Americans, their entire income on minimum wage last year was $18 million.

But if you're on Wall Street you're in good shape, 196,000 bonuses were given out to the big fat cheap corrupt investment bankers, and they got, guess what, $26.7 billion -- million, excuse me, which means that they had twice as much as everybody who worked the minimum wage.

GUTFELD: Who did they hire?

BECKEL: You wonder about income inequality in this country, and you wonder about whether Wall Street rips you off? They do.

PERINO: How much taxes did they each pay?

BECKEL: There's nothing to do with taxes. Twice as much as the people who work on Wall Street than everybody...

PERINO: I think that you have a point.

BECKEL: Thank you.

GUTFELD: Blame President Obama.


PERINO: For saving the economy.


Now, banned phrase. Government-funded, this doesn't even need to be banned, because technically, it doesn't exist. There's no such thing as government-funded. It's taxpayer-funded. Don't ever use this word again.

PERINO: Oh, I like it.

TANTAROS: Government-funded.

OK. So we talked about banning the word "bossy" here on "The Five" earlier in the week, and I interviewed the head of the Girl Scouts and asked why the Girl Scouts would partner with someone like Beyonce for this campaign.

Here's my question.


TANTAROS: So Beyonce is on this campaign, and in some of her lyrics, but mainly her husband's lyrics, she uses and he uses another "B" word, b- i-t-c-h. Do you think Beyonce was the right one to pair this campaign with considering her husband refers to woman as "ho," "slut" and all these other things, which I think is far more derogative even than bossy?


TANTAROS: You have to tune in...

PERINO: What was her answer?

TANTAROS: ..., Dana, to find out.


TANTAROS: She also says girls call other women bossy. It's not really men.

PERINO: Definitely.

TANTAROS: That's the bigger issue.

PERINO: Girls are mean to each other.

TANTAROS: They are. That's a big problem.

Eric Bolling.

PERINO: Believe me.

GUTFELD: Eric Bolling.

BOLLING: So this happened today. This is very interesting. The speaker of the House, John Boehner, invited Pope Francis to address the Congress, which is fantastic. He extended that invite today.

Hopefully, the pontiff will say yes and sit down with these people and maybe figure out a way that they can get along.

By the way, find out on Twitter @pontifex, p-o-n-t-i-f-e-x. That's his Twitter account. Three point seven million followers and another billion followers off Twitter.

BECKEL: Is he coming here? When?

BOLLING: I don't know the dates.

PERINO: Spring, late spring.

GUTFELD: He's actually staying in my place.

BECKEL: He is?

GUTFELD: Yes. I've got -- I've got a foldout couch, but I've got to get sheets and everything.

TANTAROS: Don't forget to set your DVRs so you never miss an episode of "The Five." We'll see you right 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.

The Five, hosted by Eric Bolling, Kimberly Guilfoyle, Greg Gutfeld, Dana Perino, Juan Williams, and Andrea Tantaros, airs on Weekdays at 5PM ET on Fox News Channel.