>> greta: this is a fox news alert. federal appeals court calling out president obama. we have never seen anything like this. essentially, the court wants to know if the president knows constitutional law 101. now stunning move the court ordered the justice department to answer this question by noon on thursday -- do they believe unelected judges have the right to strike down federal laws? this is sizzling.

susteren and "on the record." >> greta: this is a fox news alert. governor romney is still speaking to supporters in milwaukee, wisconsin. let's listen in. >> we are after all americans. god bless this great country and god bless you and god bless the united states. thanks you guys. thank you for the victory in wisconsin and maryland and district of columbia. [ applause ] thanks you guys. [ cheers & applause ] thank you! >> greta: happy governor

mitt romney sweeping three states or the district of columbia and two states. also breaking tonight the federal court taking on the president of the united states. yesterday, the president patronized and maybe insulting the supreme court calling them an unelected group that would know better than to strike down the healthcare law. today in middle of an unrelated challenge to the healthcare law but clearly stinging from the president's remarks of yesterday, a judge from the fifth circuit court of appeals fired back. >> does the department of justice recognize federal court have authority in appropriate circumstances to strike federal statutes because of one or more constitutional -- [ inaudible ] >> yes, your honor. there would be a favorability analysis, but -- >> i'm referring to statements by the president in the past few days to the effect, i'm sure you heard about them that

it was somehow inappropriate for what he termed unelected judges to strike acts of congress that have enjoyed -- he was referring to obamacare, to what he determined consensus and majority in both houses of congress. that has troubled a number of people who have read it as a challenge to the federal court or authority or the appropriateness of concept of judicial review. that is not a small matter. i would like to have you from by noon on thursday, 48 hours from now a letter stating what is the position of the attorney general in the department of justice in regard to the recent statements by the president. stating specifically in detail, in reference to the statements what the authority is of the federal courts in this regard in terms of

judicial review. the letter needs to be at least three pages single spaced no, less. it needs to be specific. >> greta: fox news shannon bream is here. shannon, this is bizarre. >> it is. i have never heard of something like this happening. it was obviously direct response to the president remarks yesterday. the judge repeatedly said how does the justice department truly feel about unelected judges striking down federal laws? a pointed request to the lawyer who seemed to be a little caught off-guard. >> greta: wouldn't you expect her to be? >> yes. >> greta: that would be unfush she weren't caught off-guard. >> especially when you get a homework assignment, now you need to get me this letter, specific, single spaced three pages, noon thursday, local time in houston. i talked to someone in the courtroom and saw this play out and say it was a pointed remark, the judge looked dead in the eye of the d.o.j. attorney. and really, it was, clearly playing what he was going to

say and specific instructions and a specific point he wanted to make. >> greta: for background. this was in texas, right? federal court of appeals in texas. unrelated matter to the healthcare law, or at least to the litigation of the supreme court. >> yeah. it involves a group of physician own hospital challenging portion of the affordable care act. unrelated to the supreme court case pending but it would ask judges to rule on the lu. they want to be clear that the d.o.j. is on the same page and they can do it. >> greta: you got me the tape so i listened to it. the woman lawyer from the department of justice was asked a question about whether or not the supreme court essentially can review the constitutionality of a statute. she is quick to say marbury versus madison. you learned it, i learned it in law school the first week. she was ready for that herself. it's pretty basic. she answered the question but in spite of answered the question fired off this letter to her boss. it's at the justice department. directed to her but goes to justice department. >> that is formally the court considers this in order and

it's reminding them of the deadline. it's interesting, it doesn't mentioned the content of what was asked for. the judge was clear in court. but this sealed up the content. you get the audience and you know what they discussed in the courtroom. this is direct. it's an order to her. now the justice department has to comply or basically in my understanding he can hold them in contempt. >> what is fascinating, first of all, the judge doesn't need the information. she answered the question. it really should be over at that point. but what id indicates to me is the president's remarks yesterday got under the skin of this particular judge. directed today that the panel. like the entire court was mad. never seen this. demanding no less than three pages single spaced what is in this. you have to write marbury versus madison -- >> many times. >> greta: many times to meet this. this is unusual. >> it is. although he is asking more about the question whether they can rule, he said i want this letter to detail your response to the president's remarks so he is putting it in

specific context. he is putting them on the spot. now they have to answer to what the president has said. coming from the justice department. coming from the attorney general's office. it puts them in a very uncomfortable spot in some ways. >> greta: i imagine the discussion tonight at the justice department, i would be having this discussion. it really is beyond what is necessary. it has nothing to do with the case. the lawyer asked to take this up. i'm not sure that the department of justice has to comply with this. >> it's interesting to see how they supply. they reached out today and said no comment. we called the judge's chamber and got no comment from them as well. told by the folks involved in the case if the letter is issued thursday we'll get a copy. >> greta: imagine this lucky lawyer. imagine that. she is caught between the judges down in the federal judges and the president.

the supreme court. >> you never want to angeer the judge. they are ruling on your case. tough spot. >> you want to say work it out, not my problem. but she is the lawyer so caught holding the bag. >> homework assignment. >> greta: thank you. the justice department may say it has no comment but the boss president obama sure was chatty yesterday. and this afternoon. so is the president helping or hurting the cause? brit hume joins us. brit, you want to get in on this? >> a little bit. first, amused by the letter from the judge's office, saying to do this in three pages single space and be specific. i don't know you can answer it for three pages single space without being specific. very specific. why is the president getting in this fight? >> i'm not sure the judge should have done this. it's kind of a stunt, but the president endangered the

public's imagination of himself. a former law profession. constitutional lawyer. who gave himself i think to the public as a man of level of dignity and level of decorum. now he has taken on the supreme court publicly. more than once. you may recall in the "state of the union" address in 2010 where he stood there with the supreme court justices listening quietly and respectfully and he talked about the citizen united case, allowing corporate money to be used not indirectly for the political campaign but in political campaigning in a way that hasn't been trueed before. they overturned 100 years of precedent which is not true. he said also in the speech that the court had allowed attorney money in our campaigns also was not -- foreign money in our campaign, also not true. he should know better than that. for him to misstate that and yesterday for him to misstate the facts about judicial review, something as you point out -- >> greta: i'm not sure, i'm not sure he doesn't know. >> of course he knows. of course he knows. >> greta: actually, you --

>> i'm not a lawyer and even i know. >> greta: today he didn't fix it. >> walk it back to say specifically this would be unprecedented since the new deal to overturn the law like that. >> greta: you know what i thought was more unusual today, today is from what he said is that in the event that the mandate is stricken, a lot of people will really suffer. that once again is a misread og the supreme court obligation. they're not supposed to figure out what the ends are. they're supposed to figure out what the constitution -- >> rule on the legal nature of the issue, whether it's constitutional in this case. >> not worry about the consequences. >> they're not supposed to rule if it's good social policy or not. he seemed to make an argument because this is good or necessary social policy the court should vote to uphold it. that i agree with you is a misstatement of what the court is supposed to do. i think this is dangerous for a president. because he should know better.

taking on the supreme court which is looking no government institution in washington has high prestige today but the supreme court has the highest. for president to take them on, on a political cause like this in what may seem to a great many voters in a political way diminishing him in the eyes of the public or potentially so. >> greta: i guess many of us, i guess the lawyers maybe in particular is that if nothing else fails we know the buck stops with the supreme court. we have to have respect. two of the justices are justice he put on the bench. their job from day one, law 101 is that it's the supreme court duty is to -- the powers is to include whether a statute is constitutional or not. i don't know why he said that yesterday. >> he said for the justices to overturn the statute is judicial activism. look up judicial activism. that is not how it's defined.

judicial activism is in the dictionary suggested as the discovery of new rights or new legal doctrines that are not contained in the letter or in the word of the constitution. >> greta: i'm going -- i think it determines -- >> you think it -- >> greta: no i think judicial activism is an insult that you apply to someone to a judge for making decisions you don't like. if you want to take the flip side of the coin -- >> you know what judicial activism is inviting in the act of finding a statute unconstitutional do you? >> greta: well, i mean you have to look at -- the one thing i always hold off about judicial activism, conservatives will never face is the fourth amendment. every time the supreme court creates a brand new exception to the fourth amendment, conservatives love that is judicial activism. that is because, it's either way. depending whether we like the decision or not. >> right. but for him to suggest as he did that's involved here,

another stretching of the meaning of the word. >> i found it actually more distressing that he said first of all he said it's constitutional. fine, got that. a lot of people think that. but the second thing is even if it's not constitutional, it should be upheld because it will affect a lot of people. i thought that was especially more difficult to sort of stomach, that is like saying if you take example of the warren clause, when do away with the warren clause it doesn't matter if you get something on the other end. if you fine drugs you don't need a warrant clause. that's his thinking. if you apply the analogy. >> if you are going to start saying that laws should be upheld because they purport with your preference and social policy you're for afield of the law. >> greta: that's what he did today. yesterday he insulted the court and said they didn't have the authority. today they are taking a new -- the "washington post" calls it nuanced. i find it that either he doesn't get it, or he is

playing loose. >> i think that to people who care about these issues and knowledgeable about the issues, may have admired the president and authority on the issue, to hear him talk like this either thinks he knows better in a pure cynical politics or think as you suggest he doesn't know better and that is program more troubling. >> greta: thank you. >> you bet. >> greta: one of the dumbest thingous do in politics is give your opponents lots of political an mission. here is rush limbaugh today. blasting the president. >> he says things in the sound bites that we hear coming up and they are chilling to me. the court has to understand, the court must understand is one of the sound bites. no. the court must not, does not have to listen to you. what is this the court must understand? that is a threat.

i tell you, it is hilarious. to hear obama arguing, threatening, warning, justices of the supreme court that the individual mandate is constitutional. it isn't. >> is it a threat? pam bondie joins us. your thoughts today? president saying something yesterday. and today we have the court of appeals getting in the mix. your thoughts? >> it's unusual for sitting president to criticize the top court in the land on pending the case, moreover, talking about judicial activism. i agree with your view of the judicial activism. the president is not encouraging respect for judiciary. he has a duty as commander in

chief to respect the branchs of government. she not doing that. you said you find it unusual that the judge, judge smith in the district did that. this is unprecedented what president obama did. >> greta: i hate to read a passage to think it's taking out of context, but he says and i think it's important, i think american people understand and i think the justices should understand in the absence of an individual mandate, you cannot have a mechanism to ensure people with preexisting conditions can get healthcare. now, that is irrelevant to the question whether the mandate is constitutional or not. he is telling the court he will cause trouble if you find it unconstitutional. that is not what the court is supposed to be doing. that's where you had the ends justifying the means. >> well, a few points on that. he is playing politics and playing policy. our argument has to do with the merits of the case. our argument has to do with

the next of the constitution of the united states. our argument has to do with 200-plus years of case law. as far as intimidating the court, i spent three days in front of the justices. they are not intimidated by anyone. and clearly the court of appeals are not going to be intimidated by the president. >> greta: the court should not be intimidated by anybody. >> of course not. >> greta: there is one sort of dirty secret to all of this. the whole question is the breadth of the commerce clause and whether that the president, the mandate is within the breadth of the commerce clause or out. but the problem is the commerce clause is a fluid concept. and nine people get to decide what it is. there is no scientific period to it. they decide what it is in system ways they are legislating because we give it to them to decide. that is their responsibility. this could be a vote. how broad do you think the commerce clause is. it's not scientific.

we live with whatever the court does. constitutional or not. >> but it is based on their authority under the constitution. it's based on the laws that applies. and the merits of the case. not politics or policy, which is what the president is trying to say. i believe his audience was the american people. because i think he had a bad week last week. he is worried he will lose. >> greta: well, the idea your chance to influence the court is when you are in the courthouse and you are up at the leb turn, tha lectern. that is your chance. the side of the coequal branch of got. he said yesterday strong majority of democratically elected congress, but it wasn't a strong majority. 219 the 212 in the house. that is not true. that was simply -- >> of course not. >> greta: anyway -- >> no, greta. seven votes and reconciliation process in the senate after scott brown got elected. >> greta: well, there will

be a lot more of this. we have to see what happens. we'll get this noon deadline thursday. fascinating. thank you, attorney general bondi. >> thank you, greta. >> greta: straight ahead, trojan horse, social darwinism. president obama is not holding back. those are the words he is using to attack congressman paul ryan's budget. is it all just a political maneuver? senator ron johnson is here. coming up, what in the world is the u.n. up to? tonight the big question is the u.n. violating its own sanctions in north korea? making shady deals with north korea government and not telling us? is there danger involved? ambassador john bolton goes on the record. and vice president candidate sarah palin take on a former rival. but probably not who you think. who is it? the capital one cash rewards card gives you a 50% annual bonus. and who doesn't want 50% more cash? ugh, the baby. huh! and then the baby bear said, "i want 50% more cash in my bed!"

phhht! 50% more cash is good ri... what's that. ♪ you can spell. [ male announcer ] the capital one cash rewards card. the card for people who want 50% more cash. what's in your wallet? ha ha. ♪

>> greta: dnc chair debbie waserman schultz calling ryan's plan republican path to poverty to pass like a tornado through nursing homes. she joins us. good evening. >> good evening. great to be with you. >> greta: nice to have you. explain this to me. president proposed budget, paul ryan proposes a budget. i understand you don't like it. i don't know if it's good, bad or indifferent.

the senate has not proposed a budget. we have to wait for the senate to propose a budget to have a reconciliation between house and senate to get a budget. is that sort of how the process works? >> normally a budget by the president, budget adopted by the house, adopted by the senate, but you know basically the budget process is expression of the party who drafted that budget's value and blueprint for how you are going to structure the nation's fiscal house. basically that's what it comes down to. >> greta: okay. so the house budget is republican. those are different values than your own. but that without the -- >> quite different. >> greta: quite different. i understand that. but without the senate having a budget it's sort of stops everything and the senate is currently run by, majority by the democratic party. they have 54 votes if you consider the 51 democrats, two independents who caucus with the democrats and of course

they get the vice president. until the democrats -- until the senate has its budget it doesn't enable you to sit down and work your values out and talk and work out a solution for the rest of the country. that is the problem as i see it. not whether whether people like congressman ryan's budget or not but the senate stopped everything. >> well, that is not it at all. actually, you have had the majority, as i understand it, republicans in the senate fully embrace the ryan budget. we can really call it the ryan-romney budget because romney fully embraced it as well. it's very clear. we have got the ryan-romney vision for how we should structure the nation's budget. basically we should cut our way to deficit reduction. we should -- >> greta: i got that. that is a whole -- i'll give it to you. >> give medicaid back to the states. >> greta: i'll give you a hypothetical. let's both -- i will give you a hypothetical. say you and i both agree that the romney -- >> i'll call --

>> greta: ryan-romney budget is horrible. the problem is because the democrats dominate the senate, they could have a senate democrat budget so the process could continue. you have 54 votes. all you need is 51. >> i'm confident the senate will take up a budget. but let's focus on what is important here. process is not what we're obsessing over. >> greta: but we can't get to a solution. >> greta: it doesn't matter what the romney budget is. the ryan budget is irrelevant because nobody can get to it to discuss it because there is a stop. i'll give it to you -- >> there is nothing irrelevant about a budget that passed the house of representatives that would end medicare as we know it. >> greta: it doesn't exist. it doesn't exist. >> it's the largest cut -- it does exist.

it's passed the house of representatives. >> greta: the president can't sign it. it hasn't come out -- it's a fantasy. i mean there is nothing, you've got to get something on to the senate. get something out of the senate. >> okay, greta. you are going to stipulate that we call it romney-ryan budget. it ask that you stipulate that the senate should take up a budget and i expect they will. then let's talk about the substance of the budgets because that's what matters. >> greta: good. the thing is though senator harry reid refused to put a budget on the floor. >> that is simply not true. >> greta: so he will? >> that is simply not true. i expect that the senate will take up a budget. i haven't heard harry reid say anything close to that he is not going to put a budget on the senate floor. >> greta: can you give me an estimate of what you heard when? the american people are sort of curious. when do you think that will happen in the senate? >> well, great, i'm a member of the house of

representatives so you need to ask harry reid's office or a member -- >> greta: they won't answer. i've tried. honestly, i swear. i've tried. >> i don't speak for them. >> greta: can't put words -- >> don't put words in senator reid's mouth and say because a budget hasn't come to the floor yet, that it won't. what is important is we make sure that the american people understand the difference between the two blueprints that have been and the two visions have that have been laid out. barack obama laid out a vision that has the balanced deficit reduction, cuts to deficit by $4 trillion but does it in a way that asks everybody to pay the fair share, everybody should have a fair shot and plays by the same set of rules. the make sure we continue tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, we turn medicare to voucher program, we pull the safety net out from the seniors and turn medicaid back down to the states and cut it by two-thirds giving them no resources. so when i talk about the impact on seniors in nursing homes you have 60% of the

seniors in nursing homes who are on medicaid. that is a huge harmful impact on seniors. republican vision. >> i'll take a brief last word. i don't usually like to. i am anxious to hear the discussion about all of those things you just said but i think in order to get -- we have to somehow get the united states senate to stop blocking even that discussion that you raised. >> we don't have time to waste. >> greta: i agree. i'm with you on that. i'm with you on that. but that is why i said if you give me a tip how to get the information about when senator harry reid will allow a vote on the budget i'm with you on that. if you have tips and i realize you're in house and i appreciate that, we can't have the rest of the discussion. i hope you come back. >> happy to. >> greta: thank you very much. >> thank you. >> greta: coming up, president obama calling the ryan budget plan a trojan horse. is the president attack anything more than the

political stunt? senator ron johnson is here. also former vice presidential candidate in the hot seat.

now back to greta van susteren and "on the record." ♪ ♪ >> greta: president obama calls paul ryan budget plan prescription for decline. the president taking the wisconsin primary election day to say this. >> this congressional republican budget is something different altogether. it is a trojan horse.

disguiseed as deficit reduction plan, really an attempt to impose a radical vision on our country. it is thinly vailed social darwinism. >> senator ron johnson on the senate budget committee and joins us from wisconsin. the u.s. senate. i should add they are closing up at the romney event behind them. senator, tell me, you are on the budget committee. you are a republican. and if the democrats had the majority in the senate. explain to me what you know about when the senate is going to have a vote on a budget. >> i don't know whether we're going to have one. president obama criticizing the house budget. but it actually got some votes in favor of it. the last year president obama 2012 budget lost zero to 97 in the senate. last week, the current budget lost 0-414 in the house. that is a stunning repudiation of his leadership. it shows the abdocation of

leadership when we face the type of financial crisis. he is refusing to put forward a series enough budget not even one member of his party would vote for it. amazing. >> greta: let me just say, i'm essentially, i don't want to get in the weeds with you and i didn't want to do it with representative waserman schultz. i am trying to figure when we can move the process forward. not saying who is winning or not winning, good, bad, who has the better or the rotten budget. we have to get a budget out of the senate to move it forward. i'm curious, has senator reid given indication or chairman of the budget committee given indication there will be a budget so we can engage it with the house to try to resolve it? >> no. harry reid said there is no knead to pass a budget. bring one to floor. ken conrad said he wanted to mark up a budget. he has been back tracking that as well. very disappointing.

they will rely on caps put in by the budget control act. that is not even close to a budget. they were trying, i'm sure to block any attempt the republicans made toward bringing up the house budget or bringing up alternatives for example, from like pat too manyey. >> bottom line, they don't want to show the american public that first of all they have no plan. the only plan is to increase taxes on the american people. >> the president has a proposal. so the president has some plan. the real problem is senator harry reid made a decision the stop the budget process by not letting the vote come to the floor as a consequence, the united states can't get its finances in order. we continue down the road paying high debt and people are unemployed and cat get the fundamentals to put it together with a budget. not saying that the congressman ryan's budget is

the end all at all. but i know the process deliberately stopped. >> made it t case why it's important that the republicans take over the senate and why we elect romney to be president so we can move forward in a serious fashion to start addressing the very serious fiscal situation we have in this country. not going to happen with president obama. he has four cracks at the apple. he has no plan to save medicare. his obamacare plan will further bankrupt the nation. it's grotesque with the cost of that piece of legislation. again, you made the case. we need the republicans to take over the senate and we need a republican president. >> greta: or we need senator harry reid to take responsibility. he has the job at the senate majority leader. that's why he was elected by his colleagues. every single member of the u.s. senate to tell him get a budget and do it now for the benefit of the rest of us.

move the process forward. i'll take the last word. >> we need leadership. >> greta: thank you. enjoy wisconsin. thank you, sir. >> thank you for having me on. >> greta: coming up, risky business. did you hear what is going won the u.n. and north korea? it's behind our backs. that's coming up. ambassador john bolton is here. she was a hit on "saturday night live" an now sarah palin conquers morning

>> greta: is the united nations violating its sanctions in north korea? bolton says yes and calls it reprehensible. what does the u.s. do? one agency ships computers and service to north korean government. what is wrong with that? it doesn't sound like it has anything to do with satellite launches. or does it? john bolton joins us. what the problem here? >> the world intellectual

property organization or wipo as we call it shipped the computer equipment to north korea. i has no way of knowing what the north koreans are actually going to use it for. north korea says it's update their patent office. just think about that one for a minute. north korean patent office. i bet that is a real behive of activity. wipo can't verify it, they can't monitor it. north korea, almost any additional computer power is a big plus for a country like north korea, whether it's bah lostic missiles or the nuclear program or just, you know the basic repression of your own citizenry. it's just incredible that a u.n. specializeded agency would allow this to happen. >> greta: what sort of caught my attention is this. correct me if i'm wrong. number one, we were told about it, the u.n. kept it quiet, i thought. didn't make that it public. secondly it seemed to be laundered through china and had to be discovered by a bank

of america which is the host for the funds. so when people start laundering things to other countries and they don't tell us and they are sanctioned, that is when i get to be suspicious. >> this is typical of north korean behavior over the past several decades of how it takes advantage of funding through the u.n. system. how it uses other country to launder money. how creative north korea has become in international sanctions. lesson to be learned about iran and evading sanctions as well. the case of north korea is so egregious that for even a small u.n. agency like wipo to miss this point just boggles the mind. >> greta: i look at this, you cast blame on the north korea, sort of, but i mane i can't believe wipo, a division of u.n. is doing it. i have a higher expectation to make sure the u.n. sanctions are upheld.

that to me when your team is doing that is far more disturbing. that's what i expect countries stop sanctions to get around them. i don't expect my team to do this. >> well, that depends on what you, which side the u.n. is on in some cases. to give credit where it's due here, the whistle blower was the staff union of wipo. not wipo management. the staff association troubled that wipo would bring disrepute on itself, as you say. this has been brought to attention of the member government. this is a grave breach of common sense if nothing else. i wouldn't give the north koreans pencil and paper let alone computer equipment, no matter how small amount it is. >> the u.s. canceled the food because of the missile launch coming up. you don't agree food should be

tied to nuclear discussions, do you? or am i wrong on that? >> humanitarian assistance is something different. but the common principle is the monitoring of whatever goes to north korea to make sure it goes to aid and impoverished people not to allow the government to continue in power. by giving the government patent office for goodness sakes, get real in north korea. this computer upgrade. who knows what the government will do with it. wupo can't tell. >> greta: ambassador, thank you, sir. >> thank you. >> greta: straight ahead, no. it's not tina fey. that was really former alaska governor sarah palin co-hosting morning talk show. find out how she did against stiff competition. it's not a bird or a plane. fasten your seat belts. what until you see what is

>> greta: you have seen the top stories but here is the best of the rest. former vice presidential candidate sarah palin in the hot seat this morning. governor palin guest hosting the "today" show. >> it's a pleasure to welcome the former alaska governor sarah palin to our program this morning. oh, man. she is doing her homework. governor, nice to have you here. by the way, she told me a funny story. tell everybody what happened when you were coming to 30

rock yesterday. >> nicest lady in the world stopped me, asked me where i was headed and she said, "30 rock." and he is said i told you, tina fey is here. >> start of the hour. you are guest hosting and there is experience there. sportscaster in anchorage in the day. >> in the stone age, yes. >> is it falling off a bike do you think? anything make you nervous about the role? >> not nervous, but very excited to be here with the new yorkers and all of your tourists who are here. [ applause ] >> what do you call this? >> not wearing a coat. >> all right. all right. >> do any of you here have experience with people being paid a lot of money to pretend like they are you? >> yes. >> seriously. >> tina fey was good. >> i like her. >> i didn't see the movie. i wouldn't waste my time seeing the movie.

>> are you telling the truth? you didn't see it? >> no. i didn't waste my time. why? no. not going to waste my time there. i do have to admit that tina fey has been clever >> greta: "today" show hosting that sarah palin's appearance will boost their ratings. katie couric hosting "good morning america." "back to future" fans get ready. doc's car took flight. now the real thing is here ahead of schedule. flying car made the first test flight. personal air and land vehicle can reach speeds of 110 miles per hour on the ground. it needs just 540 feet of runway to ache off. dutch company has been working on the three-wheel prototype for several years. it already has competition from an american made version. there you have it. the best of the rest. coming up, apple is changing tune about a controversial app. what is all the fuss about?

>> greta: 11:00 is almost here, flash those studio lights, it's time for last call. it's apple weeding out a rotten app? >> i tunes announced a controversial app has been pulled after people said it was design forward stalkers. yeah. the developers say they'll resubmit the app under the original name, facebook. >> greta: that is your last call. lights are blinking and we're closing down shop. make sure gou to greta wire.com to blog about tonight's show, you can tell us befrg the show tonight and of course right now you've got owe to stay tuned more live coverage. bret baier is here, i've got 10 extra seconds to kill. bret baier is right there. pointing at me. go to greta wire.com