nowhere -- shannon: what the heck? jon: the jury is still out on exactly what it was. there's speculation it could have been a media, others point to the russian military as a likely culprit. shannon: i would have been running for the hills. jon: well -- shannon: that looks apocalyptic. jon: russia is still there. we will see you back here in an hour. shannon: "outnumbered" starts right now. ♪ ♪ >> this is "outnumbered." i'm sandra smith. here today, harris faulkner, andrea tantaros, host on the independence on our sister network, kennedy, and today's hashtag one lucky guy, the honorable judge alex we area who hosted his own show for nearly a decade and today, with all due respect, judge alex, you are outnumbered, sir. >> couldn't be happier about it. [laughter] >> it's great to have you back. >> order on the couch! [laughter] >> we're off to a bad start already.

>> oh! >> no, no, we have a lot of legal stuff to talk about today. >> of course. we're going to lean on you for your expertise on that today, all things legal, and of course, start out with the news of the day, waiting on the president's big announcement tonight in prime time, going it alone. president obama will announce plans to use his executive powers to make massive changes to america's immigration system, effectively legalizing up to five million illegal immigrants. the white house and its backers in congress saying without question the president has the authority to do this and that his predecessors, both republican and democrat, have done the same. >> you can't say to a president don't be an executive no more than anybody can say to the congress don't legislate. he has the legal authority, and there is precedent of every president in modern history. >> the president is determined to use all of the authority that he has, that's vested in the presidency, to take the steps that can try to fix some of the problems that everybody acknowledges exist inside our broken immigration system. this is consistent with steps

that were taken by president reagan, president george h.w. bush and other presidents over the course of history that have used their executive power to address problems with our broken immigration system. >> but republicans are outraged over what the president is set to do, accusing him of triggering a constitutional crisis and saying he's acting like a monarch. >> what president obama is doing is he is defying the law, he's defying the constitution. you know, the president quite rightly said just a few weeks ago his policies were on the ballot all over the country. this last election was a referendum on amnesty, and the american people overwhelmingly rose up and said, no, we don't want lawless amnesty. >> so who's right, judge? i mean, senator ted cruz says we're witnessing a constitutional crisis, and then you heard from josh earnest and nancy pelosi saying he's acting within his powers. >> well, every branch seems to want to go for the power grab. the legislature does it with the judiciary all the time, and in

this case the president, in my opinion, is completely wrong. the reason is the president does have certain amount of authority under his powers to issue executive orders. if he were to say i'm going to order that the department of homeland security -- since we have limited resources -- start by deporting criminals and don't deport anybody who's not a criminal until we've deported all the criminals, that would be within his authority. the difference here is that he's not saying that. that would not offer protection to the people he wants to protect. what he's saying is i'm going to prevent deportations of these people who the law says should be subject to deportation. and by doing that, what he's doing is acting as a legislator. he's rewriting the law. he's turning around and saying, okay, i don't like the way the law is written, and congress isn't playing ball with me and changing the law, so i'm just going to stop the enforcement of the law, and that is a dereliction of his duty as the, you know, the president, his executive duty is and the oath he swears is that he will faithfully enforce the laws.

>> and this is the problem that republicans have with all this, right, andrea? >> yeah. they say there isn't a precedent for this, and there really isn't. if you look back at what ronald reagan did and 41 did, they were responding to an unintended consequence of an action that congress already took on immigration to make sure that these kids could stay with their parents. it was a very small, minor tweaking of the law that both of those presidents did. nothing like the judge just explained. and i do think it's going to cause a constitutional crisis because this likely, judge, will head to the courts. and what happens if the courts tell president obama he can't do this? then what? >> well, first of all, realize that this is going to take time. i mean, unless they can get this heard immediately -- which i honestly don't know if they can -- unless they can get this herd immediately -- heard immediately, i think the real effect is that the president finds himself in a situation where the momentum has shifted from being in favor of the democrats to in favor of the republicans, and there's an election coming up very soon. i think what he's trying to do is shift it back by making the

republicans overreact and making them become the disliked party again. if that's the goal and the republicans bite into it, it doesn't really matter what the court does down the road. it won't make a difference because they will have already soured the american public on the republican party. >> they're already soured and split on immigration, you know? a majority of the people in this country want to see immigration reform. they want that. they know the system is broken. they know there are a lot of people here. there should be a better program for guest workers, there should be more visas, and republicans talk about amnesty. is this amnesty? is what the president doing, will this action equate to amnesty? >> no, i don't think it's technically amnesty because amnesty is giving them citizenship -- >> they the same thing though? >> under no stretch of the imagination is he giving them citizenship -- >> okay. but are are amnesty and citizenship the same thing? >> in effect, yes. he's basically saying i'm not giving them citizenship because

it's laughable to think that i could do that. but i'm going to stop enforcement and give them work permits which kind of is -- if what we expect he's going to say is actually what he's going to say which is kind of the same thing. as andrea pointed out, what bush and reagan did which was to about 120,000 people, not 11 million -- >> right. >> -- was amnesty had been given to the parents and, basically, while the path of citizenship was working to get the children citizenship, they were protecting the children to not split the families. this is taking people and just basically giving them blanket protection from an existing law that he's supposed to enforce, and that's why i think it's unconstitutional. >> well, and as you were talking about, where does that leave us, though, with the criminals who need to be deported? how will the president phrase it? and what does that mean politically? we just touched on that a little bit, so let's talk about the political fallout and what that will be if president obama takes executive action on immigration. a new "wall street journal"/nbc

news poll has found that 48% of americans are against the president doing this. anger is growing among the gop, many saying it could derail their agenda before the new congress even convenes. but republican congressman marlin stetsman of indiana urges his party to remain cautious in its response to the president. watch. >> there is a lot of frustration with the president. there's anger with the president. there's a sense that he has just violated the trust of the american people again. we have to, we have to guard our tongue. we have to keep the right tone because we are going to take the senate back and control that in january, and then we can really fix the problem. >> all right. so i want to focus in on what he just said about striking the right tone. andrea, what does that mean? what is the right tone? >> well, i think we'll have to wait and see what he says this evening. but i thin-- >> no, in terms of republicans

taking -- >> well, republicans have to be very careful, because as the judge pointed out, obama is banking on republicans overreaching. he is double daring them into impeaching him, and i think this is all about politics because he knows when republicans come back, they could pass a clean border security bill. he doesn't want to be boxed in, harris. that's why he's acting on his own to try and get out there first and say i'm going to do this on my own. by the time the courts get to this, this will already have been long gone because it's going to take a while. by that time the republicans will have overreached, overplay their hands on it. that's what he's banking on. >> you know, judge alex, and we've talked about your familia coming here, coming from abroad and your own immigrant journey as your family pertains to, i'm curious, does this compromise the gop when trying to vehicle out members of the -- to seek out members of the hispanic and latino community? >> well, yes and no. obviously, the hispanic community is not fungible.

every hispanic is not the same as every other -- >> right, just like the mr. speaker community -- black community, you can't speak for everybody. >> so there are some who, like me, you know, i am certainly aware that this country is a country of immigrants, but it's also a country of laws. my family came here legally, thank god to the graciousness of the american people opening their arms to us. and you have to follow the law. if you don't follow the law, then where are we? so you can't justify people just basically ignoring the law and then reward them because what that does is it encourages more breaking of the law. so i think there are hispanics that say, yes, you know, i want to see my relatives and my family members come over, so i'm in favor of this, but i think there are some that say, you know, i'm all for that, but you got to do it within the rules. so i don't think it's a lock. >> you know, sandra, i don't know that we'll hear the president talk about this tonight, but it is one of the things that americans have expressed in pollings and surveys they talk about, and

that is the cost to municipalities and school districts. talk about that. >> that's a huge consideration and, obviously, the timing of this is crucial when you're looking at an economy that still has not recovered from the greatest recession since the great depression. but house speaker john boehner put it best possibly when he said this announcement tonight will poison the well for cooperation with the upcoming republican-controlled congress. isn't that the bottom line? the honeymoon's over, the "kumbaya" moment is over, and if this happens tonight, we're not going to see that moment where we do see both parties come together? >> yeah. real quickly, kennedy, i don't think we saw that moment. i didn't see the group hug, did you? >> no. and both speaker boehner and leader mcconnell have said, you know, we don't agree necessarily with the president, he doesn't necessarily agree with us, maybe we'll find some compromise, that's what you do. but the president trying to box republicans in, he's making a bad political move. >> yes. >> and i want to point out,

latinos only approve of this measure by six percentage points, and i realize they're not voting in blocs, they would think the approval would be 670, 80%, but it's not. 37 percent of them disapprove of this unilateral action, so who is it benefiting? >> that's a very good question. >> the president is contradicting himself and the statement he's made over the last four years. >> could i quickly say, this is a constitutional tantrum on behalf of the president? it's the precedent that takes us to a very dangerous and ugly place down the road. >> okay. they're giving us the hard wrap. get ready to hear this a lot, you've been grubered. [laughter] the obamacare architect making yet another video appearance. this guy loves the camera. this time in a campaign ad. hmm. it's targeting embattled democrat mary landrieu down in louisiana. and the makers of barbie are apologizing after offending a lot of people with a book about a barbie computer programmer who's not all that good with

computers. she needs some people to help her, and they're male. they pulled the book, but is the damage already done? and right after the show catch more from the couch on the weapon. join us for outnumbered overtime by logging on to foxnews.com/outnumbered and click on the overtime tab. we'll be sitting there reading our twitter and your comments on the live chat. you can get in on the conversation, chime in while you tune in. stay close. ♪ ♪

mhere's our new trainer! ensure active heart health. heart: i'm going to focus on the heart. i minimize my sodium and fat... gotta keep it lean and mean. pear: uh-oh. heart: i maximize good stuff like my potassium... and phytosterols, which may help lower cholesterol. major: i'm feeling energized already. avo: new delicious ensure active heart health supports your heart and body, so you stay active and strong. ensure. take life in. bulldog: [yawn]

bulldog: i just had a dream i was at mattress discounters with tempur-pedic and the largest selection of memory foam mattresses under one roof! icomfort, by serta... optimum, by posturepedic... ahh! comforpedic, by beautyrest... ooh! 48 months interest-free financing, free delivery, and queen-size memory foam mattress sets as low as $697! that's more mattresses than you can shake a bone at. ♪ mattress discounters i'm just looking over the company bills.up? is that what we pay for internet? yup. dsl is about 90 bucks a month. that's funny, for that price with comcast business, i think you get like 50 megabits. wow that's fast. personally, i prefer a slow internet. there is something about the sweet meditative glow of a loading website. don't listen to the naysayer. switch to comcast business today

and get 50 megabits per second for $89.95. comcast business. built for business. ♪ ♪ >> welcome back to "outnumbered." well, you knew it was coming, democratic candidates getting grubered. yes, jonathan gruber, the now-infamous obamacare architect, caught on at least half a dozen videos calling americans stupid and admitting the administration misled people to get obamacare passed. now making his first appearance, yes, in a campaign ad. this one targeting louisiana senator mary landrieu who's facing a runoff with republican congressman bill cassidy. watch. >> senator mary landrieu sold obamacare to us the washington way, with false promises and deception. and obamacare's chief architect admits it. >> lack of transparency, the stupidity of the american voter, that was really, really critical to getting this thing to pass.

>> and mary landrieu says she would still vote for obamacare again. >> ouch. okay, i know -- >> mary landrieu wants to make out with obamacare. [laughter] she wants to be an adult rest with obamacare -- drultress. >> these voiceovers are hysterical. >> was that you? >> well, i don't like to admit i've been moonlighting, but, yes. [laughter] >> she's in trouble if louisiana. >> he's already in trouble -- she's already in trouble. she was in trouble when she ran around like a cheerleader promising kidneys to 15 different people -- [inaudible conversations] >> keg stand. >> less keystone, less keg stand for mary. and now she has to worry about her love of obamacare coming back to bite her because of gruber's words. >> but, kennedy, going forward do you think this gruber guy will still be able to be in political ads in, say, two years when candidates have to run again? >> no. the way the news cycle goes, i

think voters are very fickle when it comes to these political sign posts that they latch on to briefly, and getting grubered might have its most strenuous bite with the supreme court because the words he has used in public might come back to bite the administration when they are presented in a judicial light. >> speaking of that, judge, how about that? okay, so the supremes are going to look at the case where the democrats said, hey, it was just a drafting error, we didn't mean to say that if states set up an exchange, they wouldn't get the subsidies -- >> from the federal -- >> right, from the federal government. how do you think the supremes are going to rule when the democrats are claiming they made a drafting area, but the law is pretty clear on that one. >> well, a general principle of construction is if it's not ambiguous, the court cannot rewrite the law. we're judges, we're not legislators, and that's where the separation of powers comes in. so i can, as a judge, if a law is ambiguous on its face, then i

can impose judicial interpretation based upon other factors in the law, but i can't take something that's clear on its face and say, no, i think what they meant was this, especially when all the evidence is to the contrary. and in this case, you know, i hate to predict what the supreme court's going to do because, frankly, they do what they want to do, and the law is what they say it is and, you know, proof of that is segregation was fine until they said, no, it's not, you know? laws change oveime. that being said, i'd be surprised to see them interpret that differently. it's clear on its face that the state exchanges entitle people to subsidies. there's -- not the federal. so i think it's a tough, tough problem for the obama administration. >> and if they don't, the whole law will unravel. >> very quickly, i do think that gruber, both of you, these comments will haunt especially when the employer mandate -- >> i think they can continue to use him in ads. if this proves to be effective for them, although i haven't read anything that landrieu's going to win with or without this sort of thing.

i do find it interesting that, you know, gruber now who likes to get paid may want to get some residual paychecks from all the videos he's going to be appearing in. [laughter] >> josh earnest saying these are 6-8-year-old videos is just a farce because these are brand new to the public and still fresh in our minds as we look to see what happens next with the health care bill. >> we're awaiting a ruling on whether a lawsuit can move forward that claims reciting the pledge of allegiance in schools is discriminatory. the battle over one particular phrase, coming up. and when you go to college, you expect questions like what are your career goals and, oh, you know, other stuff, but not how many sexual partners have you had in the last three months. [laughter] that's exactly what students at one university are being asked. we'll explain. ♪ ♪ [ fishing rod casting line, marching band playing ] [ male announcer ] the rhythm of life.

[ whistle blowing ] where do you hear that beat? campbell's healthy request soup lets you hear it in your heart. [ basketball bouncing ] heart healthy. [ m'm... ] great taste. [ tapping ] sounds good. campbell's healthy request. m'm! m'm! good.®

osteo bi-flex® with joint shield™ nurtures and helps defend your joints° so you can keep doing what you love. what'd you guys do today? the usual! the usual! [ male announcer ] osteo bi-flex, ready for action. [ male announcer ] osteo bi-flex, wouldn't it be great if hiring plumbers, shopping online is as easy as it gets. carpenters and even piano tuners were just as simple? thanks to angie's list, now it is. start shopping online from a list of top-rated providers. visit angieslist.com today.

♪ ♪ >> you're watching "outnumbered," and we are glad that you are. a judge is expected to rule on whether to law a lawsuit to go forward which claims the pledge of allegiance is discriminatory because of two words, "under god." an atheist family is claiming the pledge and those two words in particular discriminate against children who do not believe in god. in response a new jersey high school student is also going to court to defend her right to recite those words. >> one nation under god sums up the history and values that make our country great, because it does acknowledge that our rights don't come from the government, but from a higher power. >> the school says it's just following a state law which requires schools to recite the pledge once a day, and students don't have to participate if they don't want to. judge, i want to go to you first on this. there is precedence, actually, in the state of massachusetts, school district there found and

actually went all the way to the high court in massachusetts that those two words are not discriminatory. so where can this go? is there any legal ground for the school district in new jersey? >> well, realize that ever since that was added to the pledge of allegiance back in 1954, it has been challenged repeatedly -- >> right. >> -- across the country. they haven't been successful. it did go up to the u.s. supreme court after the massachusetts court, but they, i think they -- no, it wasn't the massachusetts case. it was another case that did go all the way up to the supreme court. they got rid of it on a procedural issue, that the person didn't have standing -- >> oh, interesting. >> but the massachusetts case did decide it. the supreme court, at the lower level. the supreme court has held that prayer at the beginning of a governmental meaning is just irrelevant to the separation of church and state. >> what about in a school room though? >> here's well -- they're making this argument, because they have lost this argument at the federal supreme court, at the u.s. supreme court level, at the

federal level -- >> sure. >> the u.s. constitution, they've lost the argument that it is a violation of the establishment clause. the first amendment says congress shall pass no law reflecting establishment of religion. it's been raised, and they have not succeeded. so what they've done now is raise it under the new jersey constitution and say it's an equal protection violation. >> oh. can they win? >> i don't think they're likely to win. >> but, judge, if they're not going to get a lower grade and they're not being -- i don't understand the discriminating effect on these kids. >> their claim is, look, this is one thing i don't like about the law. the rule does not require them to say, to use the words "under god." it doesn't require them to do that, so that's not a problem. the problem is they require parents to write a note explaining why their kids don't want to say "under god." and i just don't see the reason for doing that. >> why can't they just opt out? andrea was nice enough to dig into her very large purse -- they should do something on that, what she has in her purse -- in god we trust.

so do they want to wipe that away off our money too? how far is this going to go? >> frankly, i look at the atheist challenges to things like this very much like obama's gigging the republican party. he's basically trying to get a reaction, and every time they do file a suit about "under god," we get an uproar across the country. frankly, i really am mixed about it because you can't really seriously believe that your kids' religious underpinnings are based on whether or not your child recites "under god" under the pledge of allegiance. >> yeah. that's a pretty flimsy atheism if it's that much in jeopardy or somehow your class mates are going to know the continue tents of your goodless -- contents of your godless hearts -- >> on both sides. i don't have to recite it in school. to me, it's an argument with no substance, just emotion. >> sounds like a waste of the court's time. all right, does a school

have the right to know about your sex life? florida atlantic university thinks it does. it's requiring students to answer intimate questions about their sex lives, how many partners. if they don't, guess what? they can't register for classes. questions like specifically how many times have you had sex in the last three months? how many different people have you had sex with in the last three months, and if you've had sex in the last three months, how many times you've used a condom. the school says it's required to use sexual assault awareness. clemson university dropped this same exact study after complaints but, judge, this seems pretty personal. and i don't like that if you don't answer, you can't register for class. is this really what federal law dictates? >> no. first of all, i think it's kind of offensive -- >> i get my dollar back? >> alabama drink ya's dollar? -- ann drink yes, sir ooh dollar? >> cough it up, subject. >> get nothing? >> you're worth more than a buck. >> i'll start there.

[laughter] i think that if you saw the questions that were asked because the one about have you had sex in the last three months, that's just the tip of the iceberg. it just went on from there. >> very specific, uh-huh. >> the idea of saying you have to answer these questions before you can register because we have, are obligated to provide training on avoiding sexual abuse and sexual violence? what does one have to do with the other? what does your sexual life, how many partners you've had -- by the way, that's one of the questions, how many different partners have you had and do you use a condom -- >> that's why it's so offensive. and you also don't know if you have student peers who are looking at this data -- >> oh, of course. >> if this somehow can be used against you or be made public. >> the government, the school says, oh, this is completely private and confidential. >> yeah, right. >> first of all, we can all trust the government to keep our privacy, you know, the nsa and everybody.

never mind that level, but secondly, the government is not some, like, amorphous entity out there, some computer. some guy named spank key who's looking through your records -- >> spapgy looking at my sex survey makes me very uncomfortable. >> what are the chances, again, clemson was forced to drop this because of so many complaints, what are the chances people are even hasn'ting honestly -- answering honestly? >> and how is it going to alter the training? if you write down that you've had 75 partners in the last three months, what are they going to do, get you a nap and some gatorade? [laughter] >> yeah. >> it also doesn't mean you're any less or any more likely to be sexually assaulted on campus. >> not only that, there's already competition among students anyway. and i wonder if this doesn't foster an environment where sex becomes more of a focus than it already is. i mean, teenagers and people in their early and late adolescence are already so focused on it, but this really puts a fine point on how sexually active you

are. >> especially if the guy spanky is -- >> i feel like i have to apologize to him, i didn't mean to call him out. >> he's grown out now. >> home hopefully, that's not an answer to one of those questions. [laughter] new fallout as more women come forward saying bill cosby drugged and assaulted them decades ago. the comic legend's nonanswer is getting a lot of reaction. judge alex, our one lucky guy, is going to weigh in on that. plus, the satellite that's about the size of a loaf of bread, have you seen it? made right here in the u.s. a. and right after the show, head to the couch for outnumbered overtime. click the overtime tab, send us your questions. we didn't get into a lot of topics maybe the way you wanted us to? we'll go deeper after one p.m. eastern time on the couch. facebook, twitter, on the live chat, we're there. ♪ ♪

♪ >> new fallout in the bill cosby sexual assault allegations. associated press releasing interview with the comedy legend and his wife kmele and he refuses to answer questions about the allegations. takes the reporter to task about asking them. >> i want to ask if you would respond at all if any of that is true. >> there is no response. >> can i ask you, with thepersot bill cosby, should they believe anything differently? >> there is no comment about that. and i will tell you why. i think you were told, i don't want to compromise your integrity but, we don't, i don't

talk about it. >> very uncomfortable. the interview takes a dramatic turn from there when cosby thinks the cameras are off and makes this request about those sex abuse questions. >> now can i get something from you? >> what's that? >> that none of that will be shown? >> i, i can't promise that myself. >> i would appreciate it if it was scuttled. >> i hear you. >> i think if you want to consider yourself to be serious, that it will not appear anywhere. >> okay. >> i appreciate what you asked. >> wow. meantime as more women come forward alleging cosby drugged and sexually assaulted them decades ago, media outlets distancing themselves. nbc dropping a planned pilot some saw as cosby's big tv comeback. netflix postponing a cost

bistand-up special and tv land pulling reruns of "the cosby show." we could be, judge, witnessing a dramatic fall from grace here. some of that footage was just extremely difficult to watch. again these are allegations from decades ago in many cases. >> yes. >> what legally could we see happen here? is there much ground for the accusers to stand on? >> well i would, i mean certainly they have grounds to stand on. can they actually bring it to court? that's a different question. the more alleged victims that come out the harder it is for me come out the harder it is for me . typically most states have statute of limitations. and when it runs you can't bring a case. >> are there some that don't have on sexual assault. >> there are no statute of limitations for murder. >> yeah, sure. >> but most states do have limitations for sexual assaults.

i can't say all of them do. so if one of these ladies i'm sorry to interrupt you, if one of those these ladies does not have a statute of limitations yes it could be pursued. that means legally it could be pursued. the problem is really a practical one. sexual assault cases are difficult most often not done at a 50-yard line in a football stadium where you have a lot of witnesses. it become as he said/she said. a lot of evidence you rely on which is long gone. >> what if you have a pattern of abuse, multiple testimony from alleged victims, saying a same thing establishing a pattern by the perpetrator? >> the idea of admitting pattern of abuse evidence is difficult one. it is done sometimes. it is very limited. most case are reversed on appeal in criminal court are reversed on what is called williams rule evidence or similar fact evidence where they bring in another crime to prove you committed this crime. because the law requires that you be proven guilty of this offense based on evidence you committed this offense, not i

did 15 burglaries before so i must have done this burglary. there are circumstances it does come in but it is very difficult. >> we're so inside baseball right now. you've been observing this as an outsider, what happened so far, the interslews that have taken place, the accusers that have come out. just generally what do you make of what you've seen so far? >> i mean it looks very bad for him because you know, i do recognize that there are people out there, you know maybe among the accusers, one of them is somebody who decided to profit from it. that happens. there are people who say, oh, this celebrity is being accused of this and this. i will jump on that train and i will get settlement money because they want me no go away. i don't believe a lot of woman would put thatselves through that for money but there is a possibility. as more and more women come forward and say this you have got to say, that can't be. >> why now though? >> we're at 18 women. >> janice dickinson wrote in her buying graph in 2002.

>> she wrote it before that. nobody paid attention to it. >> the editors took it out because they didn't want to get into legal wrangling. >> every allegation should be taken seriously, every single one of them. more numbers come out, it becomes statistically almost impossible. >> now the money is talking. networks are canceling shows and this becomes big. we'll keep following it for you. bar by hasdbash bihas had a lot of jobs been presidential candidate and when it comes to being computer enfear. not so much. >> it is not designer barbie. most offensive up she comes up with the became idea and not able to program it herself. the guys have to do that for her. >> in a new book barbie could only get so far designing a program before she had to call in steven and brian. some folks are not happy about that. >> "fox & friends"? >> steve doocy and brian

kilmeade? >> they're that good. >> by the way that's not all. anatomically impossible body and feet shape for high heels. one guy create ad fashion doll that looks like real people. whatever that means. will girls actually go for this, versus the perfect barbie image? we'll show you the reactions to the lamoli. ♪ i have a cold with terrible chest congestion. better take something. theraflu severe cold doesn't treat chest congestion. really? new alka-seltzer plus day powder rushes relief to your worst cold symptoms plus chest congestion. oh, what a relief it is. here we go!

i found a better deal on prescriptions. we found lower co-pays... ...and a free wellness visit. new plan...same doctor. i'm happy. it's medicare open enrollment. have you compared plans yet? it's easy at medicare.gov. or you can call 1-800-medicare. medicare open enrollment. you'll never know unless you go. i did it. you can too. ♪ mhere's our new trainer! ensure active heart health. heart: i'm going to focus on the heart. i minimize my sodium and fat... gotta keep it lean and mean. pear: uh-oh. heart: i maximize good stuff like my potassium... and phytosterols, which may help lower cholesterol. major: i'm feeling energized already. avo: new delicious ensure active heart health supports your heart

and body, so you stay active and strong. ensure. take life in.

>> more "outnumbered" in just a moment but first jon scott with what is coming up in the second hour of "happening now." jon: hey, andrea. president obama is supposed to enforce the law, not write it but he is set to make sweeping changes to immigration when he addresses the nation tonight. so how will his unilateral actions play out with republicans set to take control of congress? we'll get into that. plus the horrifying discovery of the bodies of a beauty queen and her sister leads to an arrest in honduras. who was the behind the brutal murders? and drones flying way too close to passenger planes, landing at one of our busiest airports. what the faa could uncover in an investigation into some

terrifying close calls. it is all ahead "happening now." >> thanks, jon. we'll see you in a little bit. jon: all right. see you then. >> the makers of barbie are saying, sorry, over a book called, barbie, i can be a computer programmer. in it barbie tells her sister skipper she is designing a computer game. the book reads, quote, robots are so sweet says, skipper. can i play your great many? i'm only creating the design ideas, barbie says laughing. i will need steven's and brian's help to turn it into a real game. >> wow. >> fans spreading a can computer virus but brian and steven fix it. once the internet got word of the book the tweets started flying. one person wrote, helpless computer engineer barbie got the boys to solve her computer problems for her. great message. high-five. and quote, is there a brain parasite explains why someone would write a book as dumb as

this, "barbie the computer engineer"? we believe girls should be eppowerred to understand anything is possible and believe they live in a world without limits. we apologize if this book didn't reflect that belief. wow. >> you know what, mattel at least fits into the category what my pr husband would say. yar you yank it, you apologize, you replace it. of the they need to get moving fast on replacement the ceo promised is coming. >> what is the book called, i could be a computer engineer? replace it with i can't be a computer engineer. >> they move forward with books inspiring. they need to do that before the holiday season ensues. i can't even imagine reading reg that out loud to my girls. would i feel icky inside reading in out loud? >> who at mattel thought it was good idea? >> the man who wrote the book. >> steven and brian are the key suspects. >> not first time barbie played into dumb dumb stereotypes.

a talking barbie doll said things like i hate math. it is so hard. it is so hard can i get guys to do it for me. >> what is wrong with that? >> come on. >> maybe barbie trying to get a date with steve and brian and playing dumb with her math homework. >> you will think differently. >> i woos a bad math student, harris, so i don't think differently. >> barbie got a way from -- right? >> yes. >> it was about dresses and you know, having her house and her corvette and which was all problematic to begin with but that is just who barbie was. they tried to make her a career woman and -- >> stick to the original message. >> buy the corvette. >> don't get a job, barbie, is that the message? you might need your male friends? >> encountering rampant sexism and plays into horrible stereotypes which is quite sad. i like to think of barbie as being a neurosurgeon. mattel, now have an option of a

new doll that is a little more average-looking. girls will love it. meet lanoly. the doll's designer says the doll has exact proportions of average 19-year-old girl based on numbers from the federal centers for disease control. get this. the doll can be customized with a sticker pack. doesn't include puffy dogs, unicorns, rainbows, acne, moles, stretch marks and cellulite. here is how fourth graders reacting to doll. >> she looks like she is regular girl. going to school. >> she was real she would be able to stand more. >> what do the other ones feet look like? >> like she has heels, little heels on. >> kind of looks like my aunt katy. >> ah. >> aunt katy has horrific adult-onset acne.

we're working very hard. >> who paid for the video? >> controversy over the video? >> edmunds academy in pittsburgh, pennsylvania, there is narrator who if you watch the individual who specifically asked girls about the doll. i would assume it is company but talked to quite a few kids at academy. >> you know what boys tend to like as well? er heroes. they have muscular body. >> girls like superheroes. for different reasons. men have impossible stereotypes. superheroes fly. >> what is wrong with that? freckles on barbie but we did i had for free with marks a lot. with a sharpie. >> next male doll comes down the pipe will be beer belly ken. realistic stereotypes. >> mail pattern baldness. >> back hair. >> add that in. >> drooling. >> couldn't get her a better name? lamoly. >> knit the word lame in there. >> if you watch there is

transformation video that mr. almost am, who came up with lamoli had on the website. transforms original barbie into the body. heels are flat. my end of the video she is nude di. why couldn't they design her with clothes? our brains are getting as big as our booty. >> little girls with their dolls can't leave clothes on. that is strange phenomenon. you know exactly what i'm talking about. who knew a pair of 6-inch stilettos could be so powerful? my friend andrea tantaros. she just kicked it over to prove the point f you want men to be more helpful, put on heels and don't try to program anything. stay tuned. ♪

well, did you know genies can be really literal? no. what is your wish? no...ok...a million bucks! oh no... geico. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance.

join us on "happening now." a fox news alert, the nsa director warning congress that china could shut down america's power grid in say, one or two other countries are capable of doing the same thing. >> we have heard this dire warning before, but it's the first time the top official is publicly confirming it. this is "happening now." president obama said to pave the way for millions of illegal immigrants to gain legal status with one stroke of his pen. will this announcements set a divisive grounds for relations with the new republican-controlled congress. >> when the newly elected representative of the people take