italy all have a higher rate of plastic surgery when you factor in population. the report also shows that the number of plastic surgeries in the united states and the number one is . breast augmentation. if you freeze it, they will come. i m shepard smith. that s it for studio b . we re all back tonight for the fox report. 7:00 eastern time, 6:00 in oxford. your world with cavuto is coming up. the dow has taken a last minute turnaround. once it learned about the rebel success, it s up. no more mr. most o post mant least on saturdays. is that really going to fix the problem or is it time to deliver a plan that works? welcome, everybody, i m eric bolin for neil cavuto. union costs spiraling out of control, the postal service cutting back on deliveries. deliverly will occur monday through friday, and we will not deliver or collect mail on saturday. after losing nearly $16 billion, the u.s. postal service said this move will save it $2 billion a year. tim carney has an even better plan that will not only save money but keep the services flowing. what say you, mr. carney? i think the post office needs to be forced to compete. whether we privatize the post office or just keep it as a government agency, this will drive efficiency. this obviously would mean something bad for the postal union, but right now it s illegal to compete with the u.s. postal service. well, some would say fed ex and ups competes with the postal service, and they re making a profit. yeah. they are making a profit, and they can compete with certain aspects of what the postal service does, but if they tried to deliver a letter and charged less than $2.50, that would be illegal. if they tried to drop it off or you wanted to set up your own postal service in some part of manhattan and drop it off in somebody s mailbox, their own property, that would be illegal. there are federal laws to protect the postal service from competition. that s part of what has subsidized all these big union pension benefits. imagine the profits from the pree-mail days were going to keep or the volumes from the pre e-mail days keep going. i pulled the numbers. by the way, the postal service doesn t tell you how much they pay individual employees. they don t tell you how much in benefits they give them, either, so i did the math. i took the last numbers we had for 2012. they spent on salaries and benefits, $50.5 billion. we called them to find out how many employees. 629,000 employees. tim, that means each employee on average gets $80,286 per year. those are the current employees. effect the ones that they re paying in pensions. could they survive paying these kind of salaries? well, again, if you had kept the volume from 1985 before e-mail, they probably could have. it s the same problem that a lot of governments, state governments and also some big industries ran into such as detroit where they re paying these pensions as if these hey days are going to last forever, and they re imagining they re never going to get competition because they have these laws protecting them from mail competition, but then something called e-mail comes along, and all of a sudden they have much cheaper competition and they can t afford to pay the pensions. it s always the pensions, much more than the salaries, it s the pensions and benefits that do in organizations. tim, they re going to put about $16 billion on the taxpayer. now, the left likes to say no, it s not the taxpayer because it s not a taxpayer it s not on budget, but here s what happens. the postal service has a letter of credit with the treasury. they he go to the treasury and say i need $16 billion to pay my bills. they give it to them, and the postal service gives the treasury an iou. if the postal service defaults, who is on the hook for the money, year after year of billions? obviously eventually the taxpayers will end up forgiving the debt. that s what s going to happen we re going to forgive the debt and never get the money back that we sent to the postal service. i would be happy to forgive the debt if they went ahead and said let private companies compete or make the postal service be like welfare, have them only deliver to rural parts of the country where private guys cannot make a profit. we would know we re not funding some quasi business but funding something that s providing some type of wel welfare time servic. thanks for joining us. my next guest said the postal service doesn t need to be privatized. she disagrees. she wants post master general patrick donohoe removed. she s the president of the national rural letter carrierses association. thanks for joining us, first of all, on an important day. thank you for having me. i put the numbers the pen and paper to numbers. 80,000 per postal employee. how in the world do you expect he to compete when you have 629,000 employees and you re tacking on $16 billion of loss a year? aren t there too many letter carriers? absolutely not. my union is the rural letter carriers association, national rural ler carriers association union, and over 50% of my craft is a part-time employee that works only on saturday or when needed. they have no benefits of any type. okay. with all due respect, that s your union. the national letter carriers union is 629,000 employees. 500,000 strong. who knows what the number is, but you can t keep adding 10 to 15 billion dollars onto debt to keep running up these deficits year after year. something has to change. what s the answer? do we raise hold on. do we raise the price of stamps or renegotiate your contracts? first off, you talk about the billion that the money you just talked about, how much of that is the prepayment which he we are funding prepaid military benefits for all other agencies. we re the only government agency required to do that since 2006. all right. as mandated by. paea. so without that, how much of that loss would have been actual loss? well, i don t know, but i know for the last three or four years there have been multiple billion dollar losses that the postal service has thrown over to the treasury which myself and most of our viewers out here, we re funding the treasury but the postal service is throwing losses onto us. the postal service has not taken any taxpayer money. absolutely incorrect, ma am. where is the money coming from? tell me where the money came from. the postal service has no record of taking taxpayers money. we don t receive any tax funds. well, of course you do. it s not tax funds, but you knock on the door of the treasury and say hold on. you say we need $15 billion to pay our employees. the treasury gives them $15 billion. it s against the letter of credit with the u.s. treasury, but the problem is if the postal service can t pay its bills or goes bankruptcy or defaults, we, the taxpayer, have to eat that. without the prefunding last year, the postal service would have made money even in these economic times. i don t know where you get your numbers. i m looking at the numbers. i m not sure where you re getting yours, either. $50 billion in salaries and benefits alone, almost almost covers it. just about does. forget the other pension. forget the 12 or 13 billion dollars per year of retiree benefits. something has to give. you can t run a business this way. you can t run a household this way. you can t run a federal government this way, butt the president but the president seems to think it s okay. you have to raise revenues or cut expenses. which is it? let me ask you a question. you said that we re carrying the last mile for them. the postal service carries the last mile for those two companies. explain what that means to our viewer. what do you mean you carry the last mile? i ll be glad to. when we have parcells that ups or fed ex cannot be delivered, they re dropped at post offices and rural ler carriers and city carriers are delivering the last mile of that parcel. okay. are you against renegotiating are you against renegotiating your contracts to keep the u.s. postal service solvent? we just received an arbitrated decision from an arbitrator on our contract in which we created new employees at a lower pay, some of them with no benefits in a part-time capacity. okay. again again, over 40% of our employees, our craft, is a non-benefit employee. okay. this is the national rural letter carriers association. that s correct. that s who i m speaking for. should the other letter carrier unions take your past actions as a way forward to maybe solve the solvency problems at the postal service? should they renegotiate. sir, i can t speak for the other yiewns. i m not asking you to speak for them. would that help solve the $16 billion deficit that the usps has? there have been other agreements with the other unions who have done the same thing. step to the plate. look at a lower pay for those employees, incoming employees. the unions have done that. okay. the unions have worked with the postal service to do that. we need to look a the at increasing business, not cutting and slashing but increasing business and have six-day delivery. okay. and increase our service to the american public. ma am, i m going to let you go he, but the quinnipiac coal had americans voting four to one in favor of eliminating the first class mail service. we re going to have to leave it there. thank you very much. thank you. unions want him out of the job. what s the post master general have to say about that? patrick donohoe will be a special guest at 8 p.m. on fbn. don t miss that. can states force law abiding gun owners to pay for future victims of crime? they re about to try. straight from the congressional budget office, he signed the health care law. now seven million americans are set to lose their employer-based insurance. whatever happened to this? if you like your health care plan, you ll be able to keep your health care plan, period. no one will take it away. no matter what. hi. hi. i m here to pick up some cacti. it should be under stephens. the verizon share everything plan for small business. get a shareable pool of data. got enough joshua trees? . on up to 25 devices. so you can spend less time. yea, the golden barrels. managing wireless costs and technology and more time driving your business potential. looks like we re going to need to order more agaves. ah! oh! ow! . and more bandages. that s powerful. sharble data plus unlimited talk and text. now save $50 on a droid razr maxx hd by motorola. we all work remotely so this is a big deal, our first full team gathering! i wanted to call on a few people. ashley, ashley marshall. here. since we re often all on the move, ashley suggested we use fedex office to hold packages for us. great job. [ applause ] thank you. and on a protocol note, i d like to talk to tim hill about his tendency to use all caps in emails. [ shouting ] oh i m sorry guys. ah sometimes the caps lock gets stuck on my keyboard. hey do you wanna get a drink later? [ male announcer ] hold packages at any fedex office location. all right that s a fifth-floor get probleok..ter? not in my house! ha ha ha! ha ha ha! no no no! not today! ha ha ha! ha ha ha! jimmy how happy are folks who save hundreds of dollars switching to geico? happier than dikembe mutumbo blocking a shot. get happy. get geico. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more. you own a gun? well, you may be forced to buy liability insurance. why? to pay for victims of future gun crimes. democratic lawmakers in california, connecticut, maryland, massachusetts, pennsylvania, and new york all pushing the plan but star parker says the stawlt on law abiding gun owners has got to stop. star, thanks for joining us. break it down. what s the plan? what are they proposing today? well, now it s liability insurance. they are doing these politicians are doing everything they can to violate the second amendment and actually control a person s right to bear arms. when you think about it, these are democrats. these are democrats that have wanted to have gun control for aan awful long time. when you think about the reasons that they re saying that they want us gun owners to own liability insurance is so that they can, you know, pay for these accidents. well, there are a lot of accidents. there are accidents with alcohol. are we now going to have these government officials coming to homes and regulating whether you have a bar in your home? there are accidents with fire. are we going to say now that we have to get insurance to buy matches? they re out of control the verye founders put the second amendment in the constitution, to protect us from politicians like these. star, i m trying to figure the plan out. is it that they want you to require a gun owner, myself, they want me to have to carry a liability insurance in case something happens, and outside carrier, a private insurance company, and then some of the money that would be applied towards any sort of accident would come from them, or is it the state wants to regulate it and say you pay them a liability insurance premium and they will use that as a fund to pay for accidents? i don t get it. which one is it? we don t know yet. they said they re still working out the details. remember, these are the same democrats that always hate the insurance companies, so you re right. they perhaps will end up in the insurance business to make sure that any gun owners, anyone that wants to buy a gun will have to buy the insurance from them. when you think about who they say they re trying to protect, it s the victim of an accident? no. that will open up reboun reasonr more tort reform. we ll see any time there s an accident, yes, they re going after you. look at what happens when we re forced to buy auto insurance. these are the same politicians using auto insurance as an example for why we should now have liability insurance over owning a gun which is a second amendment right. i mean, we re not talking about a car that you have to purchase. there s nothing in the substitution that says, you know, you have a right to own a car. when you look at this auto insurance argument, the people that are being hurt the hardest are the poor. they re the ones that have trouble buying auto insurance, and it doesn t stop people from driving uninsured, so the state still pays into this. okay. you have the same politicians that don t have any problem, you know, with the state or taxpayers paying for people that are irresponsible drug users or that are irresponsible sexually, so they re going on welfare, but all of a sudden your right to bear arms in your private home, most people who are responsible gun owners have insurance if they have a permit to carry. i m glad you said that. people have a gun in their home most have insurance in their home. this is an attempt to take away the second amendment protections for bearing arms. very good point you made. we looked at the nra website. there s places where you can buy additional insurance and up to $100,000 worth of insurance costs $165 per year. this isn t cheap, star. i ve gotta go. it s an important thing. i guess it s for all gun owners, right. here s the problem with that. when they go into the constitution, it s all guns or no guns. it s no guns. the millions of gun owners need to fight for this right. star parker fighting the good fight. thanks, star. so is forcing gun owners to buy insurance is legal? what do you mean? forcing people to buy insurance is legal? of course it s legal. that whole second amendment argument is nonsense. you have a right to have a civil trial, but you have to pay a filing fee to a court if you want to file a civil complaint. just because they want you to have insurance, it s because they want accountability. they re not taking away were your right to bear arms. they re saying bear them responsiblably. they re going to tax it. they re going to make it so much more difficult for anybody who wants to buy a gun. look. this is not the same thing as a driver or car insurance or filing a lawsuit. this is a constitutional amendment and we all he know as lawyers that when we talk about infringing upon someone s constitutional right, there s a stricter scrutiny involved. here s the thing. if this law passes which i don t think it will because these other states that you mentioned at the top of the show, they ve all been trying to pass these laws sings 2002, 200 2003. none of them have been successful. this one if it passes because people are feeling emotional and passionate about what we ve seen in the schools and the recent past, in the sandy hook tragedy, then i think this law will be struck down without question in the court. rose marie. remi makes a good point. which point is that. the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. is it require requiring someonee excess liability insurance infringing on my right to own a gun? not when you balances it with other people s rights to have a remedy. a gun is a dangerous instrument alt. it s not a car. a car is meant to get you back and forth from work. a gun is made to hurt someone. here s the problem. wait a minute. a person s right to have a remedy? a person s right to have you hurt somebody. these these insurance laws are designed to make sure that if you hurt somebody, there s some place there for them to get made whole. in this community, in this society, i m sorry it s said with money. that s how you do it. here s the problem with the argument. i know you to be an outstanding attorney and you re a very smart woman. thank you. respectfully, i disagree with that argument. there are remedies already. there are restrictions. every state in this nation controls how and who people can buy guns, how they can be purchased, how they can be carried, and even further than that, we don t need insurance companies to be paying out large sums of money when we have civil causes of action that can make people whole if there s some sort of negligence or recklessness on the part of the gun owner. very quickly, what if i m a gun collector and i don t plan to use the gun. i have to buy insurance sm. the insurance company will give you a reduced rate when you keep it nice and locked up or when you get it robbed, it s in the back of your closet where nobody s going to find it. that s what promotes accountability. it s going to make it harder to buy a gun and it s going to make insurance companies rich. neither of those are good things. i can t imagine how much they ll jack up the price of the coverage. we ll leave it there. this just in. for seven million of you, your health insurance is on its way out. remember when president obama said this? if you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan. if you like your doctor, you like your plan, you can keep your doctor. you can keep your plan. if you like your health care plan, you ll be able to keep your health care plan. period. [applause] no one will take it away. no matter what. well, mr. president, why are seven million people about to lose theirs? hey, doc, seven million and counting, right? it s because the congressional budget office said this week that the 3.5 million they thought were going to leave employer-based insurance over the next decade is actually seven million. you know what? it s probably a lot more than that for many residential. first of all, employers can t afford the plan, they can t afford the idea to cover families. the estimate out of the irs is it will be approximately $20,000 per person to cover a family of five. people can t afford that. also, obama care limits the amount you re allowed to pay into the plan, so employers are going to say wait a minute. the employee is not paying. they re limited to 9.5%. i can t cover that. i m going to make them a part-time employee or i m going to pay the penalty. they re going to go to the exchange. that s what s going to happen to seven million or more people. they re going to the exchange. they go to the exchange, eric, they get there, and they get into the affordability glitch which is they can t afford the plans on the exchange. we wanted an answer. henry asked the president s spokesman about why the number keeps rising. how can the president claim people get to keep their coverage and their doctor if seven mill i didn million peopn off? hhs can provide you more details, more information about that. the bottom line here is that no matter where you live, on january 1, 2004 teen, an insurance marketplace will be up and running and consumers have more access to quality, affordable health insurance coverage. he said the cbo over simplified it. isn t that interesting? i read it. i read through what they re saying. this he have every figure carefully conceived for the next decade and they re impartial. it s so convenient to say that when you don t agree with their results. the fact of the matter is not will you not be able to keep your plan, you don t get to keep your doctor because your doctor is not taking that insurance because he s moving to a hospital and going on salary because he can t afford the fees being cut and all the expenses going up. that s one of the most ridiculous statements the president ever made, that you get to keep your doctor. we re learning now you don t get to keep your plan. you never could keep your doctor. not that we didn t talk about it for the better part of two years. doc, we have to leave it there. dr. se siegel, thanks so much. amid all of this, the cost of the president s new health care law is also rising. the new estimate from the bi-partisan cbo we just heard from, 1.3 trillion dollars over ten years, up from 1.17 trillion just last august. if former new york lieutenant governor betsy mccoy is right, it s about to go higher. thanks for joining us. thank you. look at the numbers who are eliminated and who can t keep their own doctor. the cost of this thing is skyrocketing. let s put this in perspective. over the last two weeks, four different government agencies, the department of labor, health and human services, the irs, and yesterday the congressional budget office have all released new projections and new information that paints a very dismal picture for the future. the irs has said the lowest cost family plan on the exchange will cost $20,000 a year in 2016. that plan will have big co-pays and dedubilityibles when you final go to the doctor. secondly, the department of health and human services and the irs unveiled a 73-page list of all types of people who were going to be exempt from the penalty for not having insurance. what is the penalty? they ll be uninsured. what s the penalty? is it 2 starts at 95 a first year. if it s that expensive, costing 20 grand, why not take the penalty? because people want to have coverage for their family. they re worried about not having coverage for their children. more bad news. the irs announced this week that people who get coverage at work, that s the way most people get it, that don t have family coverage and very few will because of the cost now, their children will be ineligible for a subsidy on the health insurance exchange so there will be millions of children who can t get insurance even though their parents have it. finally, it was announced this week that many, many millions of people who thought they were going to be covered by medicaid expansion won t be eligible for that, either. all in all, it looks like $20,000 for a family plan, and as many as 40,000 40 million people, excuse me, will be uninsured in 2016. 40 million, that s only nine million fewer people than before the law was passed. the hope was that whatever, the 30, 40, 50 mill uninsured would be insured. it s shocking that the cbo got it wrong on so many fronts. they predicted that children would be covered under their patients plan. wrong. they predicted that people would be covered under medicaid. wrong. what do they want? what does the administration really want? you know, my job is to know what s in here and i never make political forecast casts because i have no idea what they want. i can tell you one thing. are they driving everyone 1 to basically a government mandated and supplied insurance program? it appears that way. i can tell you this. the american people are already feeling the consequences. so many people are being called into their boss s office and saying we re dropping coverage in october when these insurance exchanges are supposed to open. the department of labor, however, has announced that they may not open. they ve already warned employers not to send out a letter alerting their employees as to these exchanges. they may not exist. all right. betsy, we have to leave it at that. thank you. home to the football champions, but the city of baltimore is fumbling its way to bankruptcy. why my next guest says washington should be watching. and they say silence is golden, but a kid s silence said is worth cold hard cash. my insurance rates e probably gonna double. but, dad, you ve got. [ voice of dennis ] allstate. with accident forgiveness, they guarantee your rates won t go up just because of an accident. smart kid. [ voice of dennis ] indeed. are you in good hands? news corp out with its earnings after the bell. the parent of this network posting earnings and revenues that beat wall street s estimates. cable and publishing leading the way. okay, from the news champion to these champions. baltimore might be home to the super bowl champs, but a new report, heading toward financial ruin. is ithe city already has some oe highest taxes in the state. my next guest says let that be a lesson for washington. she s with the group public notice. gretchen, they pay a lot of taxes, and it doesn t seem to be working. what s the story? yeah. a very familiar story and kind of a microcosm for what we re seeing as a nation. baltimore has double the property tax of any other jurisdiction in the state. they tax their income at the maximum level. they nickel and dime everyone that lives in the city, and yet they re in a financial ruin, and they ve done all that they can from the tax side and done nothing from the spending side. they re looking at billions of dollars worth of deficits. well, they re pretty darn close to washington, dc, right? maybe a little flu flying over from washington to baltimore. it really is. when you re only talking about one side of the balance sheet, you re missing the whole argument. you re missing what s really causing the source of the problem, and that is spending. baltimore, for example, $2 billion deficit when it comes to infrastructure and operating cost over the next ten years and then nearly $4 billion in pensions alone. here we are as the united states and we re looking at our problems, and they re relatively similar. we have infrastructure and operating costs, and of course, we have this entitlement program that is basically going to be bankrupting us. it takes up a huge chunk of our operating expenses as a government every year, and we re kind of we re failing to see the point here and failing to actually address the problem. well, we know there are a lot of spending problems on a state level. i mean, municipality levels. i mean, on a national level. doesn t baltimore want to raise taxes again? baltimore, of course, would love to raise taxes instead of having to make hard decisions. just kind of like the u.s. postal service would rather kick the can down the road instead of making some hard decisions, and then be forced to cut saturday delivery. we wouldn t be in some of these positions if we were able to get ahead of it, if we were able to make some tough decisions and have leadership on it, leadership in washington and also leadership in the cities. they knew the problem was coming. that s why they raised taxes so much. they needed to get ahead of it and find ways to curb spending. the mayor has tried on the pension front but hasn t had much success. > from tax hike to dining discount, a washington based restaurant making waves over new incentives offering to diners. they re handing out a discount for kids who get their kids to behave. should parents be rewarded for keeping their kids in line. let s ask a couple of moms. so wendy, i have to start with you. you think this is a great idea. great idea. your kids cry, pay the parents so the kid is quiet. shouldn t all kids be quiet in a restaurant anyway? yes. kids should behave appropriately wherever they are. let s get that out first. however, they rarely do. they behave however they re going to behave most of the time. so i think there is a little bit of a bit of control. i should fa pay you as a restaurant obamaer to keep your owner to keep your kids quiet. we go to a lot of restaurants in new york with our kids. i would love for someone to give me a pat on the back. yoke as parent we need incentive to have our child behave. when i go in the restaurant, we talk about it. guys, you re going to behave or do your best to behave at dinner. if for some reason they don t, we will most likely either i will reprimand them at dinner or we will politely leave the dinner and take the meal to go. i think it s the parents responsibility to enforce that our chipper behaving at dinner and we don t need to be rewarded as parents to have our children behave because that s part of our responsibility. isn t this where we are in american, this pc crazy nonsense, the woosification of america. i think that any time you can give a parent a break, give it to me. that s fabulous. give me a free drink at a restaurant for my kids behaving well, that s wonderful. parents go out to try to enjoy themselves as well. if my kids are not behaving, i am having i m the one who s most miserable. i ve gotta say. if you re at dinner, by the way, i m all for bringing kids to restaurants. i think it s a fantastic things. i would probably pay 4 bucks to keep their kids quiet at the table next door. i m sure there are people willing to pay. i m just don t think you should have to pay a patient to parent their children. that s my own pin. >opinion. should we day parenf their kids pay parents if their kids perform well on the soccer field? absolutely not. we are to instill good values, to teach them right from wrong, to perform on the soccer field and off. that s a parents responsibility. i agree with that. we sign up for this job knowing we don t get paid for our job, for any part of it, basically. except in restaurants. we ll have to leave it there. that s wendy bradford, that s liz sterns. thanks, guys. speaking of discounts, think black friday is the best time to get the best deal? better think again. sandra smith explains. what do you mean, smitty? reporter: well, february may be one of the best shopping months in the year thanks to a combination of president s day, valentine s day and end of winter sales. you may have seen them. if you need a new wardrobe or at least an update, shop it to me, a website that updates shoppers on sales found that last year, february, the month of offered the steepest discounts for on line clothing, shoes, and accessories, and some of the best deals offered 45% off women s clothing, shoes and accessories, and 40% off of mens wear. if furnish or furniture or a ns is on your list, think president s day. according to shop it to me, it was the biggest percentage off big ticket items than any other holiday in 2012. remember, negotiate a discount and a free delivery if you re buying a new mattress, say the experts. if you re in the market for a new big screen tv, february may be the best month to buy it. new electronics are introduced as we know every january at the international consumer electronics show which means in february stores are clearing out their shelves and mare that i go room for they re making room for new inventory. take advantage of that. while these deals may be too early for next christmas, valentine s day is just around the corner. did you just say shop it to me? shop it to me. that is the name of the research firm, eric. gotcha. i like it. smitty, thanks a lot. thank you. fighting a new threat in the sky. surveillance drones here at home. 11 states wants limit. is the law on their side? the judge napolitano is here. and when is illegal not illegal? wait until you hear what one democratic congressman said and what michelle fields has to say about that. hi, michelle. more states stepping up their fight against surveillance drones today. police use them to keep people safe, but 11 states are trying to limit the eye th in the sky. are they even legal? judge andrew napolitano is here. so tell us, judge. the individual states are using these drones for highway traffic violations and what not, and other things like that. is that what they re doing, or are they going after drug dealings? well, right now local police are asking for permission to fly drones, and very few of them have been given permission. if they have their way, local county regional state police will use the drones not only to determine how fast you re going on a highway but to determine what you re doing in the privacy of your back yard. if it s government property, then the drones can lawfully watch you on government property. if you re on the garden state parkway or the new jersey turnpike or route 80 between california and new jersey, the government can watch you on that highway. but in the back yard of your home, the government cannot watch you through a drone without having a search warrant issued by a judge. police intend that, but it doesn t happen that, getting there, to use these drones to watch all kinds of activity on private property, and they ll argue that they don t need a search warrant. some are saying you can t do it. you can t get permission from the feds, and we will not give you permission to watch private property with the drones. what they do remains to be seen. as you know he, drones have been watched to use to watch and drones have been used to kill. we ll get to that in a second. staying at the state level, isn t a camera on the corner in essence a drone? yes. a camera on the corner is in essence a drone. the problem with the camera on the corner is that frequently they are rigged so that it s nearly impossible for you to guess how much time you have to go through that that intersection, so even though when you re about to enter the intersection and the yellow comes on, normally you know you can get through. many of these cameras are fixed so that you can t get through. why? because the manufacturer of the camera gets a percentage of the ticket. let s talk about the news that broke yesterday. jay carney was asked about the president s drone camer program. can we listen to what he had to say. we have acknowledged, the united states, that sometimes we use remotely-piloted aircraft to conduct targeted scriex against specific al-qaeda terrorists in order to prevent attacks and to save american lives. we conduct those strikes because they re necessary to mitigate ongoing threats to stop plots, to prevent future attacks and save american lives. these strikes are legal and ethical and they re wise. don t forget ethical are wise. are they legal? no. they re absolutely not legal. the so called white paper which the obama administration told several judges if the sky came out, it would fall because it will reveal secrets is basically a diatribe against the constitution of the united states. it s chilling, eric. it says that a high level u.s. government official, doesn t even say who it is, can strip an american of his constitutionally guaranteed rights and kill him if it s easier to kill him than capture him and if he s imminent danger to national security. no standards whatsoever. that s the power claimed by kings and tyrant bees and its te power specifically denied to any government. if the government wants to interfere with our life, liberty, or property, they have to do it through a jury trial. judge, we don t have time to run this out but eric holder, 2009, used almost the exact same case for not waterboarding. am i mistaken? you know, eric holder has been all over the place on all of these things. you and i have disagreed on water boarding, but one thing i think we agree with and most of your listeners and viewers agree. the president can t kill someone and can t delegate the power to kill someone. only a jury can decide if a person is to be executed for a crime. judge, we ll leave it there. judge napolitano, thank you so much. pleasure. if tha they re illegal immigrants, why won t one democrat call them that? this is for real this time. step seven point two one two. rify and lock. command is locked. five seconds. three, two, one. standing by for capture. the most innovative software on the planet. dragon is captured. is connecting today s leading companies to places beyond it. siemens. answers. i hope no one uses the term illegal immigrants here today. the people in this country are not illegal. they are out of status. they re new americans that are immigrants. wait. what? did i hear that right? the people in this country are not illegal. they re out of status. they re new americans that are immigrants. michelle fields says they re illegal until they re not. michelle, this is what they re spending their time on. i know. it s absolutely crazy. like we don t have bigger problems than this. look. these are democrats who are doing what they do. they try to redefine words in order to silence opposition, but look. a lot of them are trying to say that saying the world saying the term illegal immigrants is racist against latinos. i m latina. i use that term. my family uses that term. my friends use that term. if anything is offensive, it s the fact that you ve got democrats trying to tell me what i should be offended about. i m trying to figure out what s racist about it. if someone comes down from canada illegally, they re an illegal, too, likely that i remember canadian, not mexican. exactly. illegaillegal immigrant is the t way to describe someone who is residing in a country unlawfully. when you cross the border without going through inspection, that is illegal. that s why we call them illegals. it may be offensive to some people, but it s reality. and there are, in fact, illegals, so mr. conners said they should be called out of status or new americans. out of status. new americans. that wind is kind of interesting. are they americans yet? if i have a gun illegally, are you just going to call me and my gun out of status and not criminals? of course not. democrats are going to say that is illegal. are you a criminal. it s absolutely absurd. they re just trying to win votes from latinos and it s offensive to say what they re insinuating is that latinos are the only people who are illegal immigrants. that s offensive. there are tons of other people who are illegal immigrants. all right. what should we call people who are here illegally? illegal immigrants. they want us to call them undocumented immigrants, but that s crazy. there are tons of illegal immigrants who are here with documents, fake social security numbers, perhaps expired student visas, expired visitor visas. they have documents and they may be expired to or fake, so it s t accurate to call them undocumented. is illegal alien, that s offensive also? everything s offensive to democrats, eric. everything offends them. everything they disagree with, they ll find a way to say that it s racist. michelle, you re no not out f status. you re in status. you have high status. yes. well, look. i think it s also offensive to people who came here legally to be like. that s a great point. we re all the same. people who waited in line and filled out the paperwork, do they have a problem with illegals, calling people here illegally illegals? what you re doing by saying that is that all of us are the same exact people. when really, these people, we have to go through a long process, a lot of work to become a citizen, and what these people are saying is that everyone s the same. all right. michelle, we re going to leave it there. michelle fields, latina. i didn t know that. thank you for joining us today. you re in status. thank you. that s going to do it for me. remember to catch me on cashin in saturdays, 11:30 a.m. eastern. i ll see you on the five in about three minutes from now. don t forget that big interview on fbn at 8:00 eastern. that s it. see you guys in a couple seconds over there. hi. hi. i m here to pick up some cacti. it should be under stephens. the verizon share everything plan for small business. get a shareable pool of data. got enough joshua trees? . on up to 25 devices. so you can spend less time. yea, the golden barrels. managing wireless costs and technology and more time driving your business potential. looks like we re going to need to order more agaves. ah! oh! ow! . and more bandages. that s powerful. sharble data plus unlimited talk and text. now save $50 on a droid razr maxx hd by motorola.
Solar panel problems: What to know before making the switch wwaytv3.com - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from wwaytv3.com Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
Art, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. It's not so complicated if one among a group of friends loves Picasso, another prefers Asher Durand, and another chooses Frederic Remington. It's easy to see the appeal of the work, even if it's not your cup of artistic tea.
New plans for technology in cars to communicate with each other. the goal is to help avoid government. wayne, you said the government crashes everything it gets involved with. it s technology. you can t stop technology. we have the same with the internet and iphones. same thing could happen here. in the long run, it s been a good thing. hey, john, what about this in theory it sounds like a good thing. we ve learned in of the past, you can trust the government with data? yeah, i don t know what wayne is talking about. it s nothing like the internet. wayne, no one forced you to get on the internet. no one forced to you get an iphone. hey, you can walk. wait a minute, the government is forcing you to put the technology in the car that s a cost to people who want to drive. eric, it was worthwhile technology, the consumers would operate it themselves.
That s why everyone was talking income inequality. president obama says, nope, not under me, not really expanding. obviously you can t argue with the facts, eric. welfare spinning itself supplying 16%. you talk about food stamps is up over 100%. and unemployment up 85%. by the way, juan, just for the record, he s been there for five years now almost so you can t say this just happened you know, this just happened yesterday and this is george bush s fault and he inherited this. he inherited some of it. of course, he inherited some of it. the but this is of his doing hchl has not helped us one iota. let me just let me please you don t think he s lifting us out? let me bring this over to michelle and john. they did a study a year ago and they found that poor families of