This is a rush transcript from "The Five," July 8, 2014. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
DANA PERINO, CO-HOST: Hello, everyone. I'm Dana Perino, along with Andrea Tantaros, Juan Williams, Eric Bolling, and Greg Gutfeld, who has a hangnail.
It's 5 o'clock in New York City, and this is "The Five."
PERINO: The crisis surrounding the flood of unaccompanied illegal immigrants at the U.S./Mexico border is intensifying by the day. President Obama will travel to Texas tomorrow but will not be visiting the actual border. His two-day trip includes fundraisers and a meeting now with state and local leaders that's 500 miles away in Dallas. That meeting will now include Republican Governor Rick Perry.
While the meeting might be a first step, two Democrats representing border districts say the president should pay a visit to their constituents.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. RAUL GRIJALVA (D), ARIZONA: I think a visit by the president is reaffirming that the border lands are vital and important. I think a visit would be important and very symbolic.
REP. HENRY CUELLAR (D), TEXAS: I'm sure that President Bush thought the same thing, that he could just look at everything from up in the sky and that he owned it for a long time. I hope this doesn't become the Katrina moment for President Obama saying that he doesn't need to come to the border. He should come down. This did not happen overnight.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PERINO: Earlier today, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest addressed the president and the calls for him to visit the border.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOSH EARNEST, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: The president is well aware of exactly what's happening on the border and what we are focused on right now are not political statements that would be made with an appearance, but rather with specific concrete action.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PERINO: OK. Juan, let me start with you, because what -- I think where they ended up is not a bad place, but the last several days for the White House has not been very pretty politically, and I think that's two Democrats were trying to give some helpful suggestions maybe to push the White House publicly into trying to do the right thing. It's a half measure to do the meeting in Dallas, but perhaps better than nothing.
JUAN WILLIAMS, CO-HOST: Well, again, it comes down to optics and how it looks, and I think the president is in a box here, I really do think he's hurting politically because on the one hand you have people in the immigrant community who are saying, hey, why are you trying to push these kids out? Why are you not giving them, you know, a fair hearing in the courts according to the previous U.S. law from 2008? Those kids are entitled to a deportation hearing.
And so, Obama is saying, no, in fact, he's saying maybe you just have the border patrol look at these kids and make a quick decision as to whether or not they should ship out and send back to El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, or wherever.
PERINO: It is pretty incredible to me that today, "The New York Times" writes an article that basically blames George W. Bush for this, because there was a law that was signed in 2008, Andrea, that was unanimous except for two Republicans who decided not to vote for it and it had to deal with preventing child sex trafficking. George W. Bush was against it, was against child sex trafficking. I mean, what a monster.
And now, they are trying to tie his actions in 2008 to this problem that now at the border six years later is something that the Obama administration -- I assume that they are also against child sex trafficking
-- but for six years they don't know this is going to be a problem? I just find it amazing that they will try to tie anything back to President George W. Bush and not take responsibility for this.
ANDREA TANTAROS, CO-HOST: It's incredible. I can tell you firsthand when I worked on the hill when George Bush was in office we championed numerous pieces of legislation against child sex trafficking because President Bush pushed us to do so. So, that's actually not true.
You can't tie this to President Bush. It's not surprising they're going to do this. In the words of Dianne Feinstein, Democratic senator in his own party, she puts it back on the White House and says, look, President Obama, you have the ability through your executive power that you love to use at every turn to get this process moving in a quick and order -
- quick and orderly fashion.
My question is, Dana, one, how can Congress ignore this? They can't.
But my question is if he takes to the courts, will he respect the court's decision on this? OK. Number one, President Obama has not respected the court's decision on a number of rulings, including most recently, Hobby Lobby. Harry Reid says we're done, we're going to fight this battle out.
So, he doesn't respect the decisions of the courts.
And also if it does go to the courts, don't you need these kids'
parents to come get them if the courts do rule that they have to leave. If the parents come to this country, then I ask this, are they going to let the whole family stay and then we have an even bigger issue on our hands.
The real problem, too, Dana, is it looks bad now, but it's going to look even worse when there is something truly terrible that happens, someone gets murdered, raped, killed, this becomes a national story and President Obama hasn't done anything about it.
PERINO: As a stopgap measure, another thing that the president can do, Eric, is he can ask Congress for additional funds to try to manage the crisis, and today, he asked for -- you're going to run down the numbers for us, $3.7 billion.
ERIC BOLLING, CO-HOST: And he also called it an emergency. It was an emergency. Well, this has been brewing for a long time, so I'm not sure how this becomes the emergency. Yes, $3.7 billion.
I'll throw out a couple -- some of them -- let me just read a couple of them: $116 million to pay for transportation costs associated with transporting the kids from where they show up to where they're going to end up being, $354 million to pay for operational costs of responding to significant rise in apprehensions, $45 million to hire about 40 additional judges -- $45 million for judge teams, $15 million to provide legal representation to the kids who show -- we're paying for their legal defense.
And this is the one that really is going to get you, $295 million for support efforts to repatriate and integrate the people who come here. So, they break the law, they come over here, we spend $300 million to send them back in addition to the half a billion dollars that's already appropriated to doing this type of thing to central America alone. I mean, it's absolutely insane.
If anything, there should be a vote on whether or not this is truly an emergency and let them decide --
WILLIAMS: What would you do, Eric?
BOLLING: Send them back, Juan.
WILLIAMS: Yes, that's what it says. Send them back.
BOLLING: No, no, no.
PERINO: And send the bill to them.
BOLLING: An even better idea, if you want to spend $4 billion, spend it closing the border.
WILLIAMS: Well, let me just say, you understand these people are not running across the border, right? You understand they're running to border agents and under the law --
BOLLING: Right, and they're being overwhelmed at the border crossing.
WILLIAMS: Yes, but you understand that's our law.
BOLLING: I do understand how illegal immigration works.
WILLIAMS: This is not a matter -- this is a matter once they get into the country, you couldn't be more right. Once they get in the country if they don't show up for the deportation hearing, that is illegal immigration.
BOLLING: There's $3.7 billion asked for and they're going to spend about $50 billion or $60 billion -- million of $3.7 billion (AUDIO GAP).
That is insane.
PERINO: Let me get Greg in here. You can comment on anything you want, but I will throw out a possible question for you.
GREG GUTFELD, CO-HOST: OK.
PERINO: One of the things President Obama has a hard time with in the polls of late is that trend line of the president understands the problems of people like me.
PERINO: So, to me I don't understand why he wouldn't try to at least go down and show some empathy because travel opens the mind. And he could
-- that could actually work in both ways, for Republicans and Democrats, people that support the immigrants being here and people that want to send them back. At least if he went, he would be seeing something.
GUTFELD: Yes, but it's hard for him to defend something that he actually doesn't like. I don't think he particularly likes the idea of borders. Essentially America to him is a boring party, and he wants to have more people here because he really doesn't like this place.
You know, people talk about the pull factors. These are the things that encourage people to come to this country. We heard about the horrible crime down south. But, really, what's causing people to come here is an attractive economy and lack of enforcement of our laws.
But what also helps, I think, encourage people to come here is the media in the sense, just simply by replacing illegal with undocumented, which is a message to them that we are pushovers. Out of a cowardly fear of racism, we have allowed language to trump the law. The media is in the same boat with President Obama about amnesty. They believe a border is bigotry.
The media is Obama's Victoria's Secret push-up bra, always there to make nothing look like something. He has no policy. He doesn't know what he's doing. But the media endorses that world view. So, he never has to face the outrage.
The guy said that this is his Hurricane Katrina. He's had seven Katrinas. He's hurricane Latrina now that the country is in the toilet.
We need FEMA to put a tape around him there's so much destruction.
BOLLING: Can I just add? One of the --you're right, the pull factors. I think one of the biggest pull factor is when these people are sending their kids and they don't see the kids coming back, they say, hey, it's OK to stay. It's OK to send them.
PERINO: The ultimate pull factor --
BOLLING: You send them back and you close that pull factor.
PERINO: I think the ultimate pull factor is, I think it's the economy, but it is still the American dream. It's the safety net. If my kids get there -- I can understand a mom, OK, mom and dad, they make a decision, a really tough one to send their kid to say, as long as they could step one toe in America, they might have a chance at having a better life than here.
TANTAROS: But it's not -- but it's not everyone that believes that.
I would love to be optimistic to think that everyone who is trying to cross the borders wants to have the American dream, wants to come here and work, but it's the American dream -- a lot of them under President Obama's definition -- and that is come to this country and become a dependent.
It's just the reality. They're not going to be all like-minded.
Now, the president has said, you know, these aren't dangerous, his administration said they're not dangerous. We don't know that. We have no idea whether they're dangerous.
WILLIAMS: Andrea, do you realize he's talking about drug dealers, drug cartels, kidnappers, thieves, and murderers?
TANTAROS: To that point, Juan, "The Associated Press" has reported the drug cartels have already flooded across the borders and infiltrated every major city --
WILLIAMS: That's not these children.
TANTATOR: Let me finish. They've been doing this for a long time, OK?
Number two, the reason, Dana, that the president can't address this crisis and Josh Earnest can't be earnest with us about the crisis is because January 28th, 2013, Jay Carney stood at the podium and said, quote, "The border has never been better enforced than it is now. Our borders are more secure than they have ever been in history and the president has demonstrated significant leadership on this issue."
WILLIAMS: And what's wrong --
BOLLING: All of it. What's right about it?
TANTAROS: It's not true. There's not one accurate --
WILLIAMS: Hang on, hang on. Net migration is a negative and people have blamed it on the fact that the Mexican economy has been doing better and our economy is doing worse so who wants to come? These kids aren't coming from Mexico, Eric. They're coming from Central America, from the place that's the most dangerous, highest murder rate in the world. Let me just --
BOLLING: Juan, Juan --
WILLIAMS: You know what? Republicans had a chance in the House to pass a real immigration plan with huge border security. It was passed on a bipartisan basis by Republicans and Democrats in the United States Senate.
Guess what? House Republicans said we're not interested.
GUTFELD: Yes, because there were other things involved in that bill.
We know that.
WILLIAMS: Like what? What do you say? What's your big objection?
GUTFELD: Well, there were some things that had to do with amnesty and making it much easier for people to get in here rather than stand in line.
WILLIAMS: No, what it had to do with was we have 12 million along us and it's the status quo now we haven't passed any form of --
TANTAROS: Juan, are you really going to stand behind that immigration bill that funneled money to La Raza to register illegal residents to the Democratic Party?
WILLIAMS: To register illegal immigrants, oh my God!
TANTAROS: What about the fact they could break three crimes and still be eligible for amnesty in this country, and that they didn't have to get to the back of the line? All of these things in that bill, I don't care what --
WILLIAMS: There's a real serious argument --
TANTAROS: It was a huge push for dependency and growing this government.
WILLIAMS: Dana hits on something. It's a real serious issue. We have a crisis at the border. The president is not looking good.
But, America, we need to deal with this issue, and this kind of attacking children, I just don't see it.
GUTFELD: Juan, Juan, Juan, everybody here is for legal immigration.
For just a line, we all just want a line. Border is our container.
Without it, we don't have a country.
Using children as basically a prop in order to get families in, that's what question object to, and it really does -- it's kind of offensive to say, oh, you don't like children. It's accurate with me, but I don't know of everybody else.
The fact is using children as basically -- as a way to climb in is not the way to go.
BOLLING: And you yourself point out, OK, it's not necessarily only Mexicans coming, right?
WILLIAMS: No, it's mostly Central Americans.
BOLLING: Shouldn't we take the children of all the other countries around the world who have heartache at home, who have tough economies, who have dangerous cities and towns, should we just take all then as well? Let them just come through the border? The same thing.
GUTFELD: I'm bringing all of my kids to your house to swim in your pool when you're not around.
WILLIAMS: That's not the same thing. Remember, this is -- this started basically last October. It peaked in May. We're talking about something that is urgent and immediate.
PERINO: But no, if it started last October, then how is it an emergency today?
WILLIAMS: The numbers -- the numbers grew.
PERINO: I know. But they had some sort of warning. They had nothing in place. The border patrol is trying -- is doing their best but they don't have the reinforcements that they need. So, now, the president has an emergency. Did they learn about it --
TANTAROS: The argument that you used, Juan -- Andrea, you're attacking children, that is a line -- I didn't hear me attack any kids.
WILLIAMS: You said those kids are not little kids who are not innocent.
TANTAROS: What I want to do is protect the American citizens that are here now that are tax paying and worry about them first.
WILLIAMS: I'm all for that, but let me tell you --
TANTAROS: That is what my priority is and keep Americans safe.
WILLIAMS: I want to protect --
TANTAROS: Not attack children.
WILLIAMS: The American --
TANTAROS: You're using kids, Juan. You're using children.
WILLIAMS: I'm not using kids.
TANTAROS: Yes, you are.
WILLIAMS: I'm saying those kids are deserving of the American opportunity.
PERINO: Well, I got to tell you --
GUTFELD: I'm deserving of the Mexican opportunity.
WILLIAMS: Then go, my son, go.
PERINO: The commercial break is going to be outstanding, and we will let you know how it goes. But I got to run.
Directly ahead, Hillary Clinton speaks for the first time about the controversy surrounding her defense of an accused child rapist early in her legal career. But does her explanation raise more questions about her actions? Details next on "The Five."
BOLLING: Remember when we told about Hillary Clinton chuckling about her child -- getting her child rapist client off easy?
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
HILLARY CLINTON: A prosecutor called me a few years ago, said that he had a guy who had been accused of rape, and the guy wanted a woman lawyer.
ROY REED: Mmh, why?
CLINTON: Would do it as a favor to him.
Do you remember that case where I represented that guy? That was -- it was a fascinating case, a really interesting case. This guy was accused of raping a 12-year-old. Of course, he claimed that he didn't, all this stuff.
He took a lie detector test. I had him take a polygraph, which he passed, which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs.
(END AUDIO CLIP)
BOLLING: Well, there's an old saying in politics, PR life, whatever, when you're digging yourself into a ditch, just stop digging. That said, this weekend, Hillary Clinton chose to keep digging the "I laughed about a getting a guy who raped the 12-year-old girl off of the few weeks time served" ditch by attempting to rationalize her actions.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CLINTON: I was appointed by the local judge to represent a criminal defendant accused of rape. I asked to be relieved of that responsibility, but I was not, and I had a professional duty to represent my client to the best of my ability, which I did. By the very nature of criminal law, there will be those who you represent who you don't approve of, but at least in our system you have an obligation, and once I was appointed I fulfilled that obligation.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BOLLING: Madam Secretary, the question wasn't whether you were lawyering up a child rapist. The question we have, I have, is about your tone deaf, mute and blind, guilt-free, no remorse laughing about it.
Ands, look, she was a defense attorney -- we get that's what defense attorneys do. We get that. But it was the chuckling, the laughing, ha ha, I got him off for the few weeks.
TANTAROS: Yes. So, the accused have a Sixth Amendment right to counsel, but there's no constitutional requirement that lawyers think that rape is funny when they're trying the case. It doesn't mean that every time that you win in court, Hillary, you get to sit around and have a belly chuckle.
These are things that are going to come back and haunt her.
Now, the media is not going to talk about this, but this is her on tape in one of the most serious and sensitive instances trying to, even if she didn't agree with it, trying to do her job. It was her job to do this case. She didn't have to sit there and bust a gut in such a, I think, terrible moment of timing but she will have to talk about this because this is who Hillary Clinton is.
BOLLING: Dana, this ship sailed a couple weeks ago. She decided to bring it back up over the weekend. Is that ill-advised?
PERINO: Well, I can't -- I believe that she was probably asked about it. I don't think that she necessarily volunteered it and then she decided she would answer it, so that's the way -- although reading in commentary magazine today, just looking at some of the somewhat inconsistent explanations as to whether she was appointed or whether she actively tried to be on the case, but regardless you do -- maybe -- let's just say give her the benefit of the doubt and say, you didn't have a choice, you had to take the case. You do have a choice of how you talk about it later.
And she -- we are all the product of everything we've ever done.
She's going to have to answer that. Interesting to me that this didn't come up in 2008, because during that primary campaign with President Obama, that was very -- it was vicious, and they threw a lot of things at one another. I'm surprised this one didn't come up.
BOLLING: Greg, it seems like almost weekly now since she decided to kick off that book tour, we're finding more and more stuff. I got to assume the trail doesn't end here.
GUTFELD: Yes. She's like a ma not news machine of groaning gas.
But, look, she was only defending a child rapist. It wasn't a Koch brother, so it's OK. She was just doing her job which, you know, means impugning the credibility of a rape victim. They all do that.
And it's OK if you're a feminist. I feel this would be a bigger story if it was Chris Christie doing this, it would be all over the place, or Mitt Romney. Remember when Mitt Romney put his dog on the car, oh, that was awful, wasn't it? It's much worse than defending a child rapist. And I'm chuckling over that.
GUTFELD: No, that's the hilarity of this is that she's going to get away with it because she does. But the thing is it should provide no joy to the Republicans because they have to find an actual candidate to beat her, and they haven't, so she will be president. They can laugh about this, but she'll still be there.
BOLLING: But you know what, Juan, four months ago, three months ago, she looked almost like she was unbeatable.
BOLLING: Now, there are a lot of little breaks, little chinks in that armor.
WILLIAMS: Well, I must say, I think that the Republican Party is doing a good job early on of trying to find any and everything they can --
BOLLING: That's not substantial?
WILLIAMS: That -- I think most people have been through this. As we've said at this table, it's a lawyer's job.
PERINO: The thing that bothered -- the thing that tripped her up the most wasn't something a Republican operative came up with. It was a question from Diane Sawyer about how she felt about the vast wealth that she and Bill Clinton have now compared to --
WILLIAMS: Yes, exactly. Not this one.
PERINO: -- the message about income inequality. But that was the one that started it off poorly. It wasn't a Republican operative's, you know, handiwork.
WILLIAMS: Oh, no, but I think there have been a bunch, Dana. I mean, everything from she was helping her husband when he was having --
PERINO: Well, they might be able to help her along, but Hillary Clinton has done herself no favors.
WILLIAMS: No, I think it's been a rocky tour. Let me just say that.
I don't think -- I think if you look at her right now, you'd look at the poll numbers. You see them declining.
Obviously, as Greg said, she's still the titan on the field.
BOLLING: Can we do this then?
So, that came up, that re-emerged over the weekend, but this also emerged over the weekend. Hillary Clinton giving some props to French Marxist Thomas Piketty. Clinton says, "I think he makes a very strong case that we have unbalanced our economy too much towards favoring capital and away from labor." And Spiegel says, "Piketty argues that the growing gap between the rich and the poor is threatening democracy." Clinton says, "I do agree with that."
All right. Quick, around the table, we don't have a lot of time.
Around the table, this isn't helping her either. Income inequality issue and she sides with a known Marxist.
TANTAROS: Yes, and she wrote her paper in college about Saul Alinsky.
Hillary Clinton is not Bill. She is from the President Obama wing of the party. She's from the progressive wing of the party. That is who she really is.
So, to the last point, who Hillary Clinton really is, laughing about getting a murder charge taken down from manslaughter. She's a progressive.
She's a dyed in the wool -- I don't know if she'd move to the middle and take her husband's advice when she becomes president. But I'm wondering, Dana, if the reason President Obama didn't bring it up is because he didn't want to contrast his record as a lawyer with her record as a lawyer, because he doesn't have a record as a lawyer.
PERINO: The article -- an article about it did run in "Newsday," but the author said it was given a wash by the editors to protect her.
I would just say the best piece about Piketty's book is by Jonah Goldberg. It was a cover story in "Commentary Magazine." So, look, you just have -- don't read Piketty's book. It's so long. Read Jonah Goldberg's piece about it and, basically, it says he makes a shady case with bad facts and he gets to the point that he says -- I don't -- well, here is the bottom line. If I were Hillary Clinton, I wouldn't necessarily hitch my wagon to that star.
BOLLING: Absolutely. Thoughts on Hillary Clinton and Piketty?
GUTFELD: Well, Spinal Tap had a better tour than her. The idea that inequality is a threat, it shows you that progressives tend to choose solutions that are always far worse than the threat they attempt to cure.
In this case, what would be the solution to inequality -- capping salaries, forcing businesses to jack up wages, and then no longer hiring. We've seen when that happens.
WILLIAMS: But you must admit that income inequality is a huge political issue in the country --
GUTFELD: It's been made a that way.
PERINO: However, can I make a point because I missed yesterday?
PERINO: On Saturday, there was an article in "Politico" and a couple of other places, where the Democrats are trying to do a communications pivot away from income inequality because they are desperate to protect their red state Democrats in November. So, now, the president is like a president without a message. He can't bring up income inequality anymore.
WILLIAMS: When you see the argument over the Federal Highway Trust Fund and other things, that argument --
PERINO: I agree, but the Democrats are walking away from it.
TANTAROS: That goes over with the regular voters --
BOLLING: They're yelling. Porter is yelling at me and say, let's go, bro.
Coming up, outrage erupts after "The New York Times" publishes this full-page ad from the pro-atheist group slamming the Catholic Church and it's members on the Supreme Court for the Hobby Lobby ruling. The latest on the uproar, when we return.
TANTAROS: "The New York Times" is under fire for publishing a controversial ad that many find offensive to Catholics.
Last Thursday the Freedom from Religion Foundation took out this full- page ad in the paper, protesting the Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby ruling.
It features a picture of birth control pioneer Margaret Sanger and criticizes the, quote, "all male, all Roman Catholic majority" on the high court for putting, quote, "religious wrongs over women's rights."
The "Times" defends running the ad, saying it complies with their company's policy. Part of their statement to us says, quote, "We do not accept advertisements that are gratuitously offensive on racial, religious or ethnic grounds or that are considered to be in poor taste."
So Greg, isn't that exactly what this ad is? If you replaced the words "all male, Catholic," let's assume with "all female" or "Jewish" or any other term besides Catholic, there would be Armageddon.
GUTFELD: It's -- it's actually a compliment to Catholicism, because they wouldn't have accepted an ad that was critical of Islam precisely for this reason. Catholics don't cut your head off. They don't mutilate your body. They don't kidnap virgins. The worst thing Catholics do is shake your hand at mass, which I find irritating.
What they did was they narrowly interpreted a law that allows a business to opt out of a few pills that they can afford. So string them up by the rosaries, I say.
TANTAROS: But isn't this profiting off of bigotry, Eric?
BOLLING: Well, sure. "The New York Times" is profiting. I'm not sure it's bigotry, but it certainly -- look, the ad is basically a fund- raiser for freedom from religion. So I guess that we should be OK. They should be able to do that. But what it is is the media -- again, the divide and conquer media -- men against women, blacks against whites, wealthy against poor -- kind of a sad commentary, but Margaret Sanger, right?
TANTAROS: Yes. Interesting choice for the ad.
BOLLING: She shouldn't -- no woman can call herself free who does not own and control her own body. Isn't that how they kind of got in trouble in the first place?
TANTAROS: Yes. And we don't have time to get into the history of Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood and why she started it, but it's pretty uncomfortable, right, Juan?
I mean, let's look at this uncomfortable statistic, as well. 1924, Democratic convention, remember when the liberals ran out Al Smith because he was Catholic?
TANTAROS: That was a perceived bias towards Catholics in the Democratic Party. Are we seeing that move now? Progressives are being pretty bigoted against Catholics, because the other day "The Huffington Post" ran an article questioning should we have all Catholics or a very male-dominated Catholic Supreme Court?
Then we have the National Organization of Women coming out. They have a "Dirty 100" list that goes against nuns.
TANTAROS: How disgusting.
WILLIAMS: The Little Sisters are on that list because of their argument in the Hobby Lobby case.
BOLLING: Which is asinine.
WILLIAMS: But I don't know if it's asinine. Look, I wouldn't have put it there. But I mean...
TANTAROS: Is there a bigotry against Catholics in the Democratic Party? Is this a growing movement by progressives?
WILLIAMS: I think what you're seeing is a fund-raising letter, right?
I mean, the big argument to me is the one that Greg raised, which is "The New York Times" refused an ad that said, "End Islam." And they said at the time, "Oh, we don't" -- I think they're worried that these -- the terrorists might come after "The New York Times" if they ran that ad. OK.
But then how are you going to then say it fits your standards and run an ad that goes after the Catholics?
Now, I got to tell you, I think the Roman Catholic Church has a lot of power in this country, and if you -- and when it comes to the abortion issue, I think they have, you know, cooperated with making it a wedge issue that benefits Republicans. I don't think there's any question about that.
PERINO: But most Catholics vote Democrat.
WILLIAMS: At this point they do.
WILLIAMS: Let me just say also you know what's in your favor? Guess who approved Roe v. Wade? It was an all-male court.
PERINO: Are you reading my notes?
PERINO: I was going to make that point.
I'll end with this. Remember when "The New York Times" ran the ad during the surge, when General Petraeus came back to Washington to testify in front of the Foreign Relations Committee, which included senators Clinton and Obama, who were planning to run for Congress [SIC].
And "The New York Times" allowed an ad that said, "General Betray-us,"
which I think would have fit the definition of what you just described as their reasoning for denying an ad. That would have been one I think -- that I would have said no to, as well, but maybe "The New York Times"
should just say, "We'll run any ad."
TANTAROS: I wonder, should we draft an ad and send it over, asking if we should have unmarried women on the court, or why the court has someone who's Jewish on when they're only 2 percent of our population is Jewish?
What would happen, Greg, if they ran that ad?
GUTFELD: Can I completely avoid that question and just go after NOW?
Because Little Sisters of the Poor, they help the poor, the impoverished, the elderly. They help 13,000 people in 200 homes. It now puts them on this list, calls them -- calling them the "Dirty 100."
You should see a picture of these nuns. They're these little nuns, and they're absolutely adorable. They take a vow of poverty.
Now take the vow of stupidity. They're just idiots, idiots. Just look at these little old ladies.
BOLLING: I totally, tote ally agree with you. But who is the president of NOW now? You know, whoever. Find out, Google her. Find out who she is; send her an e-mail, send her a letter and say, "You've got to stop that." That is just ridiculous. Going after Little Sisters of the Poor.
PERINO: I think that they've come undone. There's a huge disconnect between the young people, I think, that are writing their ads and the people with any common sense. And they don't check them. Nobody is -- no one is doing a gut check.
TANTAROS: I think this is the face of progressivism revealing its ugly head.
BOLLING: Terry O'Neill.
TANTAROS: Up next, Terry O'Neill. Send your emails. Listen up, coeds. Would you stop shaving your underarms as a way of expressing feminist outrage over so-called societal norms? We'll find out where a college professor is offering some extra credit for this hair-raising gender study course, when we return.
GUTFELD: Women's bodies are under assault. Victimized under the guise of evil tradition. I speak not of honor killings or lashings for adultery but of shaving armpits. Thank heavens for feminists.
According to campus reform, ASU gender studies professor Breanne Fahs who's giving extra credit to female students who stop shaving their underarms and legs and then journal on it.
On today's campus, this replaces learning. If you wish to be clean- shaven, however, you don't get credit. Is that discrimination? Sure, but it's not like anyone cares, which is my point.
Who exactly are you rebelling against when you advocate armpit rights to a class of feminists? What risk are you taking? A real teacher might give extra credit for stuff that challenges their world view. Have them volunteer at the border.
Campus outrage is big over little things and tiny over the big things.
Victim of female genital mutilation Hirsi Ali got booted from speaking at Brandeis and not a peep. Nigerian girls are kidnapped, same thing.
Oppression galore, they just snore.
Instead, the modern professor traffics in safe lefty dreck to elevate status in places where their beliefs go unquestioned. "I am woman, hear me roar" is now "I am woman. Read my thesis on the patriarchal assault on my armpits."
Meanwhile, millions of women are dying to come here, fleeing from real, actual oppression. But I guess it's no fun bashing a culture if it isn't western.
All right. A.T., remember when college taught you stuff like stuff that was needed to prosper? Not to make symbolic gestures.
TANTAROS: I don't know if it taught me that much stuff about prospering.
I thought about this, Greg. In certain classes I was doing so poorly I may have considered growing my armpit hair out just to up my "C" to an "A." Now, absolutely not.
But this just shows you how out of touch unity -- university professors are, and the left is when they talk about the real issues facing women, right? So I guess he's implying that, because of gender roles, women have an unfair place in the world, because we have to shave our bodies and men don't. Has he been outside of that college campus?
TANTAROS: Oh, she clearly does not know about the trend of manscaping
-- sorry, I got them confused.
GUTFELD: Yes. A lot of manscaping.
TANTAROS: There's a lot of armpit hair on this teacher, so. There's a lot of manscaping happening.
TANTAROS: She doesn't even know that some men out there have less body hair than I do, although I lasered all my armpit hair off so I don't have any right now. I couldn't even do this exercise if I wanted me to.
PERINO: That's discrimination.
GUTFELD: My goodness, the things we learn here on this show.
Dana, is it any wonder other countries like China are smiling all the way to our banks?
PERINO: Yes. I think that's -- and I believe this is going to do wonders for the marketing department at Arizona State University if they don't want men to go to their university. This might be the perfect way to discourage them.
GUTFELD: Eric, imagine a parent paying a tuition for this.
BOLLING: You just nailed it, though. Dr. Fahs says there's no better way to learn about societal norms than to violate them. Even better if you have a parent that teaches you them before, so you don't have to grow your armpit hairs long or whatever the other things that you might do to realize that it's pretty darn gross and stop doing it. Am I wrong?
PERINO: If you want to have armpit hair, fine. I don't care.
BOLLING: You don't?
PERINO: I don't care. I mean, I would not want to do it, and I would not have taken this -- I wouldn't have suggested...
WILLIAMS: But you would notice a woman who's had, you know, hair on her legs, hair on her armpits.
PERINO: I notice it, of course.
WILLIAMS: It is a challenge to societal norms, and it's supposed to be a learning experience. Why is everybody so uptight about...
GUTFELD: I'm not uptight about it.
PERINO: What's wrong with societal norms? I love societal norms. I want more societal norms!
GUTFELD: Societal norms actually are a great thing.
PERINO: Right. It's called manners.
PERINO: What's wrong with manners?
WILLIAMS: No, no, the idea it's the challenge. So you see that you have norms.
GUTFELD: That's interesting. You should grow your armpit hair out and then get dreadlocks. How's that?
TANTAROS: Actually, if you let it grow long enough, you could get dreadlocks under your armpits.
GUTFELD: That's what I meant. Because I'm a sad, strange man.
All right. Up next, one fan caught on camera sleeping through a game.
We've been there, haven't we? It's baseball. And now he's suing. Find out why when we come back.
WILLIAMS: A baseball fan is crying foul after broadcasters made fun of him for sleeping on camera during a Yankees/Red Sox game in April. So check this out.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOHN KRUK, ESPN COLOR COMMENTATOR: That's not the place you come to sleep.
I'll tell you what. How comfortable is that? Probably won't have any neck problems tomorrow.
DAN SHULMAN, ESPN PLAY-BY-PLAY ANNOUNCER: I mean, is that guy to his left his buddy who's just letting him sleep or is he here alone? What's the deal with this guy?
KRUK: Maybe that's his buddy, and he likes him a lot better when he's asleep.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WILLIAMS: Well, now he's suing. Andrew Rector filed a mind-boggling
$10 million lawsuit against the Yankees, Major League Baseball, ESPN and the two announcers. He said they mocked him for snoozing. Rector claims his character was defamed, and he suffered emotional distress.
I know you're a sensitive soul, Mr. Eric. What do you think?
BOLLING: This is what's wrong with American lawyers, right there.
You heard what they said, and it's kind of innocuous. You heard exactly that. But the gentleman, Mr. Rector, is saying here's what they said about him. "The plaintiff is not worthy to be a fan of the New York Yankees." I didn't hear that. He said that the plaintiff is a fatty cow needs two seats all the time and represents a symbol of terror.
I mean, they're completely turning around what -- they were having a little fun -- Shulman and Kruk were just having a little bit of fun with the fan. And by the way, I think you sign away your rights on the back of that ticket by using that ticket.
WILLIAMS: I think it's opinion. I mean, I don't see what the problem is here, except you know, you don't go to a baseball game, I heard somebody say on FOX earlier today, and expect to be defamed and ridiculed. But on the other hand, go to court, $10 million, is that serious?
PERINO: I hope the judge says, "Get the heck out of here."
GUTFELD: Wouldn't it have been a different story if it turned out he was dead?
PERINO: You mean if he had died in the seats?
GUTFELD: Yes, if he had been dead and nobody knew that.
PERINO: That would be a different story.
GUTFELD: Then we'd be leading with that story.
WILLIAMS: Yes, because it's baseball. That's why you're about this thing, right?
GUTFELD: Yes. Baseball.
I've done that many times in many games. Often I've ended up completely naked.
WILLIAMS: Did they shave you while you were naked?
WILLIAMS: Well, what do you think?
TANTAROS: I don't think this will even make it to a court. A judge will throw it out, and then they probably won't settle for anything, because it's so ridiculous. And if you're a Yankees' fan at a matchup against the Yanks and the Red Sox and you fall asleep, you're asking for it.
WILLIAMS: Let me -- just play with me. OK, so I say, hey, you know what? All his friends are making fun of him. All of his friends say, "Man, you fell asleep on TV. At the Yankees game."
TANTAROS: So what?
By the way, Bob Beckel has fallen asleep when we've been doing breaking news on this show, and we've made fun of him. I think Kimberly called it a "FOX Snooze Alert." And we've outed him. Bob doesn't have a case.
WILLIAMS: Yes, he sued. He sued. He sued. We'll see how that one
Well, anyway, "One More Thing" coming right at you.
PERINO: Time now for "One More Thing." I'm going to kick it off.
Many of you know Katie Pavlich, who is a FOX News contributor. She's on lots of shows, sometimes on here but mostly on "Outnumbered." She was on "Hannity" last night talking about her new book. This is her new book.
It is called "Assault and Flattery." You might not know that she is already a New York Times best-selling author. This is her new book, and it basically takes on the concept of the war against women and who is really waging it, and she's got a great writing style. It was very engaging. So congratulations to Katie.
And Greg, I will pass that to you. I will call on Juan. No pictures.
WILLIAMS: Well, you know that 1995 hit, "This is How We Do It?"
Well, this is how Tom Hanks does it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WILLIAMS: Yes, that was Hanks at a wedding in Canada over the weekend. And guess what? It was tweeted out by Justin Bieber. Justin Bieber tweeting, Tom Hanks dancing, getting it on, having a great time. I think that was pretty cool. And apparently a lot of people do. It's a big hit on social media.
TANTAROS: Better than that naked tweet of his midsection.
WILLIAMS: Why do you bring those things up?
PERINO: Andrea knows all. Andrea knows all. And you're next.
TANTAROS: OK. So yesterday we talked about gun violence in Chicago.
And I want to show you, and a Chicago magazine does an excellent job showing how fraudulent these numbers are. What you're hearing coming out of Rahm Emanuel's mouth and the chief of police, it isn't true. They're fudging the numbers.
So they keep talking about how the murder rate has gone down in Chicago. Look at this. Murder, 171 versus 180.
But here's the issue that you really need to look at. Shooting incidents are up: 880 shooting incidents versus 833. So when they talk about incidents, not only has it gone up, they only count an incident as one incident, even if seven people were shot.
Here's the real number to look at. At the very bottom, the Chicago Tribune talks about shooting victims. This is how New York City breaks it
down: 2,185 this year alone, versus 1,196. So when you hear them talking in Chicago about how they've improved the murder rate, getting better, it's not. It's all fuzzy math. It's all fraudulent.
PERINO: An informative "One More Thing." All right, Greg.
GUTFELD: Time for a banned phrase. Journaling. This is a new academic phrase that means writing in your diary.
PERINO: In your journal.
GUTFELD: In your journal. They call it a journal, but let's face it:
It's a diary for adults. Diaries should only be for 12-year-old girls. It should be about some guy they have a crush on, maybe some unicorns or your digestive issues.
BOLLING: Didn't you use that in your monologue today?
GUTFELD: Yes, I did. Journaling is a stupid word. Writing, no journaling.
PERINO: Now, speaking of something stupid, Eric has got an app he's going to tell you about.
BOLLING: Oh, it's my turn? OK, so I love Snapchat. So Snapchat.
GUTFELD: I've never heard that from you.
BOLLING: However, so Sean says, "Have you Yo'd yet?"
I'm like, "What's Yo?"
It's like, I don't know. Take a look. Take a look at the little screen. You tap it and someone "Yo'ing" you comes on at the top of the screen. I'm like that's really stupid, until I realized there are other applications. Restaurants, retail, and this one: The Israelis are "Yo'ing"
about incoming rockets.
PERINO: Maybe not where I was going with that thought. Hmm.
PERINO: I can do that all day long. I'm going to send you an e-mail.
I'm going to write you a letter that just says, "Yo."
BOLLING: That's Yo. That's the app.
GUTFELD: I'm banning a phrase.
PERINO: OK. Don't forget to set your DVR. 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.