united states tonight, 8:00 p.m. >> hello, i'm dana perino. it's 5:00 in new york city and this is "the five." the crisis surrounding the flood of unaccompanied illegal immigrants at the u.s./mexico border is intensifying by the day. president obama will twrafl to texas 20etomorrow but will not visiting the border. he will have a meeting with state and local leaders that's 500 miles away in dallas. that meeting will include republican governor rick perry. while the meeting might be a first step to democrats representing border districts say the president should pay a

visit to their constituents. >> 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. >> 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. >> earlier today white house president secretary josh earnest addressed the president and the call for him to visit the border. >> 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. >> okay. juan, let me start with you. 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. >> 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 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, whatever. >> it is incredible to me that today "the new york times" writes an article that basically wl blames george w. bush because there was a law that was signed in 2008 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 that. >> 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 bu bush. it's not surprising they're going to do this. in the words of dianne feinstein, 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? okay. 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 rule 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 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. >> as a stopgap measure, knowing thing the president can do 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. >> 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. $3.7 billion. i'll throw out a couple -- let me read a couple. $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. 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. it's absolutely insane. if anything, there should be a vote on whether or not this is truly an emergency. >> what would you do, eric? >> send them back, juan. >> that's what it says. >> no, no, no. an even better idea, if you want to spend $4 billion, spend it closing the border. >> 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 -- >> and they're being overwhelmed at the border crossing. >> that's our law. >> i do understand how illegal immigration works. >> 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. >> $3.7 billion asked for and they're going to spend about 50 million of the $3.7 billion on securing the border. that's insane. >> let me get greg in here.

i will throw out a possible question for you. 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. >> right. >> 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. 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. >> yeah, 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 full factors. we heard about the horrible crime down south. 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 team around him there's so much destruction.

>> you're right, the pull factors. one of the biggest pull factor is when these people are sending the kids and they don't see the kids coming back, they say, hey, it's okay to stay. it's okay to send them. >> the ultimate pull factor -- >> you send them back and you close that pull factor. >> 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 is mom, a 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. >> 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. >> do you realize he's talking

about drug dealers, drug cartels, kidnappers, thieves, and murderers. >> to that point, juan, the associated press has reported the drug cartels have already flooded across the borders and infiltrated every major city -- >> that's not these children. >> let me finish. the reason 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 leaderissue. >> and what's wrong -- >> all of it. what's right about it? >> there's not one accurate -- >> 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. they're coming from central america, from the place that's the most dangerous, highest murder rate in the world. let me just -- >> let me say one thing -- >> 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. >> yeah, because there were other things involved in that bill. we know that. >> exactly. >> like what? what's your big objection? >> 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. >> 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 -- >> juan, are you really going to stand behind that immigration bill that funneled money to register illegal residents to the democratic party. 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 --

>> there's a real serious argument -- >> it was a huge push for dependency and growing this government. >> 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 dwaking children, i just don't see it. >> juan, juan, juan, everybody here is for legal immigration. 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 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. >> and you yourself point out, okay, it's not necessarily only mexicans coming, right? >> it's mostly central americans. >> shouldn't we take the children of all the other countries around the world who have heartache at home, who have tough economy, who have

dangerous cities and towns, should we just take all then as well? let them just come through the border? >> i'm bringing all of my kids to your house to swim in your pool when you're not around. >> 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. >> but if it started last october, then how is it an emergency today? >> it's the numbers grew. >> 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 they need. now the president has an emergency. >> the argument that you used, juan, andrea, you're attacking children, that is -- i didn't hear me attack any kids. >> you said those kids are not little -- >> what i want to do is protect the american citizens that are here now that are tax paying and worry about them first. >> i'm all for that, but let me tell you -- >> that is what my priority is and keep americans safe. >> i want to protect -- >> not attack children. >> the american --

>> you're using kids, juan. >> i'm saying those kids are deserving of the american opportunity. >> well, i got to tell you -- >> i'm deserving of the mexican opportunity. >> then go, my son, go. >> -- we will let you know how it goes. 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. does her explanation raise more questions about her actions? details next on "the five."

♪ remember when we told but hillary clinton chuckling about

her child -- getting her child rapist client off easy? >> he had a guy who had been accused of rape and the guy wanted a woman lawyer. why? >> would i do it as a favor for him. >> do you remember that case where i represented that guy. 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. he took a lie detector test. i had him take a polygraph. he passed which forever destroyed by faith in polly graphs. >> there's an old saying in politics, pr life. when you're digging yourself in a ditch, stop digging. this weekend hillary clinton decided to keep digging by attempting to rationalize her actions.

>> 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. >> 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. we get that's what defense attorneys do. but it was the chuckling, i got him off. >> 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 you get to sit around and have a belly

chuckle. these are things that are going to come back and haunt her. 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. >> dana, this ship sailed a couple weeks ago. she decided to bring it back up over the weekend. is that ill-advised? >> 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 ben fift the doubt and say you didn't have a choice, you had to take the case. you have a choice of how you

talk about it later. we are all the product of everything we've ever done. interesting to me 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. >> greg, it seems like almost weekly now since she decided to kick off that book tour, we're finding more and more stuff. i go the to assume the trail doesn't end here. >> yeah. she's like a ma not news machine of groaning gas. she was only defending a child rapist. it wasn't a koch brother so it's okay. sh she was just doing her job which means impugning the credibility of a rape victim. i feel this would be a bigger story if it was chris christie doing this or mitt romney. remember when mitt romney put his dog on the car. that was awful, wasn't it? it's much worse than defending a child rapist. and i'm chuckling over that. >> yeah. >> 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. >> four months ago, three months ago she looked almost like she was unbeatable. now there are a lot of little breaks, little chinks in that armor. >> 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 -- >> that's not substantial? >> i think most people have been through this. as we've said at this table, it's a lawyer's job. >> 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 -- >> not this one. >> the message about income inequality but that was the one that started it off poorly.

it wasn't a republican operative's handiwork. >> there have been a bunch. everything from she was helping her husband when he was having -- >> they might be able to help her along, but hillary clinton has done herself no favors. >> 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 declinindeclining. obviously as greg said, she's still the titan on the field. >> 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 picadi. she says i think he has a very strong case that we have unbalanced our economy too much towards favoring capital and away from labor, and spiegel says he argues that the growing gap between the rich and the poor is threatening democracy. clinton says, i do agree with that. around the table, this isn't helping her either.

income inequality and she sides with a known marxist. >> yes, and she wrote her paper in college about saul lyninski. she is from the progressive wing of the party. to the last point, 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. but i'm wondering 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. >> 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 say the best piece about pikkety's book is by jonah goldberg. don't read his book. it's so long. read jonah goldberg's piece about it and it says he makes a

shady case with bad facts and he gets to the point that he says -- well, here is the bottom line. if i were hillary clinton, i wouldn't necessarily hitch my wagon to that star. >> absolutely. thoughts on hillary clinton and pikkety? >> spinal tap had a better tour than her. the idea that inequality is a threat, it shows you progressives tend to choose solutions that are always far worse than the threat they attempt to cure. what would be the solution in capping salaries, forcing businesses to jack up wages. >> you must admit that income inequality is a huge political issue in the country. >> it's been made a that way. >> on saturday there was an article in politico 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. >> when you see the argument

over the federal highway trust fund and other things, that argument -- >> i agree but the democrats are walking away from it. >> coming up, outrage 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.

♪ "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 court for putting, quote, religious wrongs over women's rights.

the times defends running the ad saying it complies with their company policy. their statement says we do not attempt advertisements that are gratuitously offense or that are considered to be in poor taste. greg, isn't that exactly what this ad is? if you replace the words all male, catholic let's assume with all female or jewish or any other term besides catholic, there would be armageddon. >> 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 vir jins. the worst thing they do is shake your hand at mass which i find irritating. they narrowly interpreted a law that allows a business to opt out of a few pills they can afford. >> isn't this profiting off bigotry, eric?

>> well, sure. the norge"the new york times" i profiting. i'm not sure it's bigotry but the ad is basically a fund-raiser for freedom from religion. i guess we should be okay, they should be able to do that, but it's the media -- the divide and conquer media, men against women, blacks against whites, wealthy against poor, kind of a sad commentary, but margaret sanger, right? >> yeah. interesting choice for the ad. >> 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? >> we don't have time to get into the history of margaret sanger and planned parenthood but it's pretty uncomfortable, right, juan? let's look at this uncomfortable statistic as well. 1924, democratic convention, remember when the liberals ran out al smith because he was catholic? >> yes. >> that was a perceived bias towards catholics in the democratic party. are we seeing that move now? progressives are being 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. >> wow. >> how disgusting. >> the little sisters are on that list because of their argument in the hobby lobby case. >> which is asinine. >> i wouldn't have put it there. >> is there a bigotry against catholics in the democratic party? >> i think what you're seeing is a fund-raising letter, right? the big argument to me is the one that greg raised, which is "the new york times" refused an ad that said and islam and they said at the time -- i think they're worried that the terrorists might come after "the new york times" if they ran that ad. okay. 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 when it comes to the abortion issue, i think they have cooperated with making it a

wedge issue that benefits republicans. i don't think there's any question about that. >> but most catholics vote democrat. >> at this point they do. >> so -- >> let me say also you know what's in your favor? guess who approved roe v. wade? >> are you reading my notes? remember when "the new york times" ran the ad 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 and "the new york times" allowed an ad that said, general betraeus which would have fit the definition of what you just described as their reasoning for denying an ad. that would have been one that i would have said no to as well, but maybe "the new york times" should just say we'll run any ad. >> yeah. >> 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 is jewish on when only 2% of our population is jewish? what would happen if they ran that ad? >> can i completely avoid that question and just go over n.o.w. because little sisters of the poor, they help the poor, the impoverished, the elderly, help 13,000 people in 200 homes and now puts them on this list 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 takes a vow of stupidity. they're just idiots, idiots. look at these little old ladies. >> i totally, tote ally agree wh you. who is the president of n.o.w. now? send her a letter. it's just ridiculous. >> there's a huge disconnect between the young people writing their ads and they don't check them. >> i think this is the face of

progressivism revealing its ugly head. >> terry o'neill. >> up next, terry o'neill. listen up, coeds, would you stop shaving your underarms as a way of expressing outrage over so-called societal norms. a college professor is offering some extra credit for this hair raising gender course. when we return.

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, a professor is giving extra credit for female students who stop shaving their underarms and legs and journal it.

this replaces learning. if you wish to be clean shaven, 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 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 drek to elevate status in places where their beliefs go unquestioned. i am woman, her me roar is now read my thesis on the patriarch allel assault on my armpits.

it's no fun bash agriculture if it isn't western. all right. remember when college taught you stuff like stuff that was needed to prosper? not to make symbolic gestures. >> i don't know if it taught me that much about prospering. >> i thought about this, in certain classes i was doing so poorly i may have considered growing my air pit hair out just to up my kr67"c" to an "a." it shows you how out of touch university professors are and the left is when they talk about the real issues facing women, right? so i guess he's implying 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? >> it's a she. >> she clearly does not know about the trend of -- sorry, i got them confused. >> a lot of man scaping. >> there's a lot of armpit hair on this teacher. there's a lot of manscaping happening. she doesn't know some men have less body hair than i do although i lasered all my armpit

hair off so i don't have any. i couldn't do this exercise if you wanted me to. >> that's discrimination. >> my goodness, the things we learn on this show. other countries like china are smiling all the way to our banks. >> 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. >> eric, imagine a parent paying a tuition for this. >> you just nailed it though. dr. foz 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 then before so you don't have to grow your armpit hair as long or whatever things you might do to realize it's pretty darn gross and stop doing it. am i wrong? >> if you want to have armpit hair, fine. i don't care. >> you don't? >> i don't care. i would not want to do it and i would not have taken this -- >> but you would notice a woman

who has had hair on her legs, hair on her armpits. >> i notice it, of course. >> it is a challenge to societal norms and it's supposed to be a learning experience. why is everybody so upset -- >> what's wrong with societal norms? i love societal norms. i want more societal norms! >> it's called map enners. >> you see that you have norms. >> that's interesting. you should grow your armpit hair out and get dread locks. how is that? >> gross. >> actually, if you let it grow long enough, you could get dread locks under your armpits. >> that's what i meant. because i'm a sad, strange man. 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. it's one of the fastest growing crimes in america. in fact, there's a new victim of identity theft

every...three...seconds. so you have to ask yourself, am i next? one weak password could be all it takes. or trusting someone you shouldn't. over 100 million consumers had their personal information stolen in recent retail store and online security breaches. you think simply checking last month's credit score can stop identity thieves now? that alone just isn't enough. but lifelock offers the most comprehensive identity theft protection available. as soon as the patented lifelock identity alert system detects a threat, you'll be notified by text, phone or email. ♪ your response helps stop thieves before they do damage to your identity... helping to keep you safe... with three powerful layers of protection. detecting threats to your finances, credit, and good name 24/7. alerting you to potential danger. and if anything is found, your resolution expert will help restore your identity. so you can get back to enjoying your life. ♪ lifelock watches out for you

in ways banks and credit card companies alone just can't. plus, it's backed by a $1 million service guarantee. lifelock will spend up to $1 million on experts to help restore it. try lifelock membership risk free for 60 days with promo code easy. that's 2 months of proactive protection to help keep your identity safe, risk free. act now and get this multi-device charger. charge all your devices at once to save you time... a $30 value, free! call the number on your screen or go to lifelock.com/easy. try the most comprehensive identity theft protection available risk free for 60 days plus get a $30 multi-device charger, free. enrollment takes just minutes. your protection starts immediately. call the number on your screen or go to lifelock.com/easy. ♪

bulldog: ibut my friends i are learning skillsnt! that can change a life. that's why mattress discounters good deed dogs is raising money to help train dogs like suzie to engage students in schools and special education classes.

while ginger visits folks in the hospital offering quiet comfort. with your help, we can do even more! make a donation at mattressdiscountersdogs.com or any mattress discounters. mattress discounters good deed dogs helping dogs help people.

♪ 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. game in apri. so check this out -- >> that's not the place you come to sleep. >> how comfortable is that? probably won't have any neck problems tomorrow. >> i mean, is that guy to his left his buddy who is just letting him sleep or is he here alone? >> maybe that's his buddy and he likes him a lot better when he's asleep. >> well, now he's suing. he filed a mind boggling $10 million lawsuit against the yankees. major league baseball, the yankees and the two announcers. he said they mocked him. he claims his characters was

defamed and he suffered emotional distress. i now you're a sensitive soul, mr. eric. >> you heard what they said, but the gentleman 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. they said the plaintiff is fat and needs two seats all the time. they were just having a little fun with the fan. i think you sign away your rights on the back of that ticket. >> i think it's opinion. i don't see what the problem is. 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, $10 million, is that serious? >> i hope the judge says, get the heck out of here. >> wouldn't it have been a different story if it turns out he was dead? >> what? >> you mean if he had died in

the seats? that would be a different story. >> we would be leading with that story. i've done that many times in many games. often i've ended up completely naked. >> did they shave you while you were naked? >> yes. >> what do you think? >> i don't think this will make it to a court. a judge will throw it out and they probably won't settle for anything. if you're yankees' fan at a matchup against the red sox and you fall asleep, you're asking for it. >> just play with me. i say hey, you know what? all his friends are making fun of him and say man, you fell asleep on tv. >> so what? >> by the way, bob beckel has fallen asleep during breaking news on this show and we've made fun of him. bob doesn't have a case. >> well, any way, one more thing coming right at you.

time now for "one more thing." many of you know katie pavelic. she was on "hannity" last night talking about her new book. this is her new book and it takes on the concept on the war on women and who is really waging it, and she's got a great writing style, very engaging. so congratulations to katie. and i will call on juan. >> you know that 1995 hit "this is how we do it?" this is how tom hanks does it. ♪ ♪ this is how we do it ♪ this is how we do it

>> yeah, 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, murder, 171 versus 180. here's the issue that you need to look at. shooting incidents are up. 880 versus 833. so when they talk about incidents, not only has it come

up, they only count it as one incident, even if seven people were shut. here's the real number to look at. this is how new york city breaks it down. when you hear them talking in chicago about how they've improved the murder rate, it's not. it's all fuzzy math. >> greg? >> time for a bad phrase. journaling. this is a new academic phrase that means writing in your dia y diary. >> in your journal. >> it's a diary for adults. diaries should only be for 12-year-old girls. maybe about a guy you have a crush on or unicorns. journalling is a stupid word. writing, no journaling. >> speaking of something stupid,

eric has an app. >> i love snapchat. so sean says, have you yo'd yet? take a look at the little screen. you tap it and someone comes on at the top of the screen. i thought that's really stupid, but there are other applications. the israelis are yo'ing about incoming rockets. >> i'm going to send you an e-mail and write you a letter that just says yo. >> we'll

we have live in washington. want to lose a few pounds? all the calorie counting for you. "fox & friends" starts now.4)ç ♪ we hope you are taking it easy as you're waking up joining us. good morning.vtúìáhp &hc% watching "fox & friends" on this wednesday. >> the message for mother nature is take it easy. fox news alert. overnight killer storms ripping through the northeast leaving0e

tens of thousands in the dark this morning. including a mother and her daughter. died when four houses collapsed near syracuse, new york. right off its foundation. right now. and tragedy also striking at a summer camp in maryland. a little boy killed by falling tree branches. three tornadoes ripped through ohio.  the borde spinning out of control. president obama asking for nearly $4 billion to deal with the problem despite refusing to visit the border himself. but he is buckling to political pressure meeting today with texas governor rick perry. peter doocy is live now with the host of that meeting. good morning, peter. heather. in texas where the