we den know exactly how many questions he's going to take. you can imagine the reporters will get as many in as they can. >> eman javers, thanks so much. the president is set to speak at any moment, "mad money" will have lot for joining us. see you tomorrow at 5:00 for more "fast." "mad money" begins right now. hey, i'm cramer. welcome to "mad money." welcome to cramerica. we are awaiting a news conference from the president at any moment. and we will bring you that as soon as it begins. but until then, other people want to make friends, i'm just trying to make you some money. my job, not just to entertain, but to coach and teach. call me at 1-800-743-cnbc, or tweet me @jimcramer. sometimes it's worth asking, why the heck didn't we get hammered today? why? why? considering all the hideous corporate news. why weren't we just down huge! rather than the dow actually

gaining 14 points, s&p, and the nasdaq climbing .05%. you have to admit it's pretty amazing, especially because at one point we looked like we could be down at least a percent from the get go and slide even further. just think of everything that's gone wrong in the last 24 hours. first of all, sprint walked away from buying t-mobile which totally wrecked the big consolidation play that could've led to stable pricing and more profits for all the phone companies. plus, the new company, sprint, will have to spend even more money to complete its next generation buildout. the idea was you can tag team with t-mobile and not have to spend so much money. the crushing of sprint down nearly 19% today. shocked those who were betting the deal was basically done even as t-mobile, which was down 8.4% have been playing very close to the vest recently. the justice department's involvement in blocking the steel suggests the antitrust

regulators might be making a comeback. big huge ugly negative. that was sprint. second, walgreen's, the biggest drugstore chain in the world announced that contrary to what many investors were hoping and betting on that it would not choose to lower its taxes by changing to a foreign domicile, the so-called inversion trade. even as it had every right to do so. buying a european company, they're merging. it made sense. plus the company cut the future guidance for 2016 fiscal year. next thing you know, the stock gets whacked for 14%. another big, huge, ugly negative. fortunes were lost today in walgreen's. and it didn't matter to the overall averages. speaking of lost fortunes, how about the amount of money that was just burned -- >> the house of pain -- >> by fox's decision last night to walk away from the time warner bid causing a

mind-blowing 12.85% decline. in that popular favorite of so many hedge funds and arbitrage funds. i don't think i read a single article before today that speculated that murdoch would walk away from pursuing time warner. 24 hours ago, it was inconceivable. yet again, it didn't matter to the overall averages. given the huge losses in this stock, i can't believe there wasn't a wider impact. so many people thought today would be terrible. but there wasn't -- parker hanofin reported a totally unexpected shortfall, and the stock dropped 4.7%, one point down really horribly. and again, it took down the whole industry complex. we haven't seen any sort of even a hand hold, foothold for the industrials let alone a level support now for two straight weeks. they've been horrendous and

disappointing and they -- and this compounded the pain. the pain stayed -- >> the house of pain. >> in the industrial aisle of the supermarket, it never bled further. fifth, europe. oh, man, europe has just gotten bad, when he said it would get bad. italy had a negative number last night for the gross domestic product. germany clearly slowing down. this sinking of europe has been a huge fear for me. i've tried to hit it home every single night for you because of the rushing sanctions are pushing a lot of negatives toward europe. all those markets were clobbered. why not? they've been up huge off the bottom, the recession seems to be off the table. not anymore. the recession being put back on the table. think about it, we had huge red ink in all the markets. our markets shook off all those losses within the first 15 minutes of trading and stabilized. i found that incredible. six, interest rates are going

down again, we know that lower rates as ridiculous as it seems, more on that later, have become synonymous with selling the financials, they need higher interest rates in order to get higher earnings. still one more day of rates coming down, now to levels we haven't seen in ages. it shouldn't be reassuring, but the group barely got dinged. many of the banks were higher. seventh, new negative. oil's down again and this market wants to see higher oil again. higher oil means the economy is strong. the oils had become the market's leaders until recently, but sure haven't been of late. and yet, that cohort, many of which were particularly the domestics were so bad today. couldn't take down the market either. so logically we have to ask, how the heck is this market not being knocked through a loop? why weren't we crushed? i think i have an answer, at least for today's session, and that's russian sanctions. namely that vladimir putin slapped sanctions on countries

sanctioning his companies. normally that would sound like one more escalation, but i don't think it was. the sanctions were on agricultural imports. that's not a big deal. maybe it hurts some railroads because of grain that didn't get -- wouldn't get shipped. plus, if putin's still playing with sanctions that means, what does it say? he's still willing to reach a diplomatic solution. why bother tinkering with sanctions if you know you're going to invade ukraine within the next 72 hours. why not leave open the possibility for some sort of resolution. i think it was viewed as a positive. any good news in russia, meaning a diplomatic solution on the horizon, at this point, can cause an oversold rally, which is what we really had today. if only because short sellers don't want to be nailed by peace talks that would reignite the western european economies that are ailing. how about all the money, still, the money lost in those seven negative situations i detailed, how could they not have overwhelmed the market? i think one of the main reasons

is because we didn't see many funds, hedge funds borrowing a lot of money to play the situations. so there wasn't a spillover. sure, there were some big hedge funds that had to be obliterated by walgreen's, time warner and sprint, but their pain didn't spread to the general market. and that's why it was a victory for the bulls today. the sprint t-mobile collapse is bad for sprint and t-mobile shareholders. these advances more than made up for the decline in stocks. american tower, all among the best in show because sprint and t-mobile will have to keep buying new equipment now they're competing. they all do benefit. now, i don't have an answer for the tax inversion pain yet. i would have thought that would've caused more damage. i think that's a problem we need to keep -- we need to keep the upper momentum going in the market. maybe the inversion deals aren't over. maybe walgreen's was a special situation. when i talked to them, they told me, listen, we have walgreen's in virtually every corner of the

country, it would look bad. it would look bad. and i think the visibility of walgreen's made it they had to say no to inverting. oil's interesting. today was the first day i actually heard people talk about the idea that the consumer will be helped by lower prices at the pump. in fact, it was the strongest day for retail in agens. walmart, one of the worst stocks out there, 100 million people still shopped there, though. walmart stock went up, and it wasn't on an upgrade, went up off of gasoline. called it a buy, macy's didn't hurt either. at last, the market was making sense when it comes to oil's decline. and the positives it is actually bringing for the american consumer. finally, hidden leadership emerge. the consumer packaged goods segment with interest rates getting wildly noncompetitive to stocks. rates fell again because of these amazing lows and rates, the bond market equivalent trade was back and back on despite the weaker earnings of these companies. proctor & gamble, clorox, bad

quarter. kellogg's, terrible quarter, and they all bounced and bounced big. that's heartening for anyone to see, stone walls, i want to get behind them. sometimes not having a real 2% to 3% bruising when you could largely expect one is important. maybe it's as important as actually having a full-blown rally. here's the bottom line, i think this market demonstrated a resilience that must be remembered. file today away. we should've been crushed by some very high-profile blow-ups, we weren't. and i think sometimes not having a real one, two, or 3% bruising when you expect one to happen is more important than having that full blown rally. and that's exactly what happened in today's positively bizarre session. let's go to ray in wisconsin. ray! >> hi, jill, boo-yah. a lot of sears stock, and i was

wondering what your thoughts are on the company. i heard they were going to be selling sears canada. and i need to know whether to hold or sell. >> i've been recommending you only be in the strongest retailers and sears doesn't fit that pattern and the canadian situation does not make me feel any better about it. i am not recommending sears here point-blank. i've got retailers i really like. sears isn't one of them. how about we go to robert in illinois. robert? >> hello, mr. cramer. >> how are you? >> i'm doing well. >> excellent. >> in 2010 for my father's estate and reinvested dividend to buy more stocks. >> okay. >> i heard that excelon was going to buy part of it. i'm planning on it for long-term. >> in the end, we have to be worried about earnings, which are fine. okay. and that matters, and we have to worry about interest rates and excelon is fine. i'm not crazy about these situations, but they're fine longer term.

and don't worry about what's buying who, just worry about the yields and the yields are fine. lisa in florida, please, lisa. >> hey, jim, thanks for taking my call. >> of course, what's up. >> so i purchased cvrmg inc. in february at $35. and i was going to buy more of the stock, especially because of the dividend yield at 6.5%, what are your thoughts? >> i don't want you to do that. i think this is an okay situation. not a great situation. if you want to do yield and get growth which is what i like, you can think about enterprise product partners. that would be the best one. a lot of people questioning my judgment about rich kinder and how well kinder morgan partners is doing. i'm using that, again, as the possibility of a better yield play. so let's go back again to this market. didn't make a lot of sense to people because of those high-profile blow-ups.

in reality, it was a darn good day for the bulls. now we're still awaiting the president. let me tell you something, i hate stupid markets. what does a stupid market look like? kind of exactly like this one. they are markets where if you step back and thought for a minute, you might be a buyer of the same news we are selling off on. let me explain. we know now that when oil reverses, the stock market goes down. as i said earlier, they are closely correlated. even though only 10% of the market does well with higher prices, seemed joined at the hip and are programmed to go lower. why, you ask? because when the oil goes down, things must be bad in the economy. that's what i hear all day. that's the excuse. we know it isn't supply, because while we found a lot of oil in this country, we can't transport much of it to where it is useful and the oil markets keyed off of the overseas or brent price. now, how about this headline instead.

i got a whole new kind of logic on programming here. how about this one about a plummeting oil price with a different spin, a positive one. strapped consumer gets relief at the pump. hey, let's pair it with another headline. lowest prices in years could spur consumer spending, and then a follow-up, walmart/costco gain on gas decline. both see oil tax going down. okay. forget wall street speak for one moment. which story line makes the most sense? which is more likely to be on the front page? which would be nodding and saying, of course, that's right. that's right! it's good! oil going down is good for the consumer, which is good for spending, the economy, good for stocks. it's a positive story line and, you know, that doesn't sell papers sometimes. oh, and if oil were sitting six-month highs, what do you think the narrative would be? six month highs versus lows? i think the headline would be all about the strapped consumer who is staying away from the mall and causing economic

weakness. we're always happy to print that negative story. how about the simple story line that's rendered stupid by this idiotic market. we're worried about interest rates going down. here's some wall street headlines, rate decline worrisome, could signal demand weakness. that's one of the most prominent themes of this market. then, well, how about the fed bond buying, fuels continue lower rates, these are the story lines. right now, though, we are going to the president. please be seated. >> as i think everyone knows by now, this first u.s.-africa leader summit has been the largest gathering we've ever hosted with african heads of state and government. that includes about 50 motorcades. i want to begin by thanking the people of washington, d.c. for helping us host this historic event. and especially for their patience with the traffic.

as i've said, this summit reflects the reality that even as africa continues to face great challenges, we're also seeing the emergence of a new, more prosperous africa. africa's progress is being led by africans including leaders here today. i want to take this opportunity to thank my fellow leaders for being here rather than a lot of prepared speeches, our sessions today were genuine discussions. a chance to truly listen and to try to come together around some pragmatic steps we can take together. and that's what we've done this week. first, we made important progress in expanding our trade. the $33 billion in new trade and investments i announced yesterday will help spur african development and support tens of thousands of american jobs. with major new commitments to our power african initiative, we've tripled our goal and aimed to bring electricity to 60 million homes and businesses.

and today i reiterated we'll continue to work with congress to achieve a seamless and long-term renewal of the african growth and opportunity act. we agreed that africa's growth depends first and foremost on continued reforms in africa, by africans. the leaders here pledge to step up efforts to pursue reforms that attract investment, reduce barriers that stifle trade especially between african countries and to promote regional integration. and as i announced yesterday, the united states will increase our support to help build africa's capacity to trade with itself and the world. ultimately, africa's prosperity depends on the greatest resource, its people. and i've been very encouraged by the desire of leaders here to partner with us in supporting young entrepreneurs including with our young african leaders initiative. i think there's an increasing recognition that if countries are going to reach their full economic potential, they have to invest in women, their

education, their skills and protect them from gender-based violence. and that was a topic of conversation this afternoon. and this week, the united states reached a range to help empower women across africa. nutrition continues to grow, aiming to lift 50 million africans from positive in our fight against hiv/aids, we'll work with ten african countries to help them double the number of their children on life-saving antiretro viral drugs and deploying first responders to help control the ebola outbreak, we're working to strengthen public health systems, including joining with the african union to pursue the creation of african centers for disease control. i also want to note that the american people are renewing their commitment to africa. today, interaction, the leading alliance of american ngos is announcing that over the next three years, its members will invest $4 billion to promote

maternal health, children's health and the delivery of vaccines and drugs. so this is not just a government effort, it is also an effort that's spurred on by the private sector. combined with the investments we announced yesterday and the commitments made today at the symposium hosted by our spouses, that means this summit has helped to mobilize some $37 billion for africa's progress on top of, obviously, the substantial efforts that have been made in the past. second, we address good governance, which is a foundation of economic growth and free societies. some african nations are making impressive progress. but we see troubling restrictions on universal rights. today was an opportunity to highlight the importance of rule of law, open an accountable constitutions, strong civil societies and protections of human rights for all citizens and all communities. and i made the point during our

discussion that nations that uphold these rights and principles will be more prosperous and economically successful. in particular, we agreed to step up our collective efforts against the corruption that cost african economies tens of billions of dollars every year. money that ought to be invested in the people of africa. several leaders raised the idea of a new partnership and there was widespread agreement. and we decided to convene our experts. third, we're deepening our security cooperation to meet common threats from terrorism to human trafficking. we're launching a new security governance initiative to help our african countries continue to build strong professional security forces to provide for their own security. and we're starting with kenya, mali, nigeria and tunisia.

during our discussions, our west african partners made it clear they want to increase their capacity to respond to crises. the united states will launch a new effort to bolster the early warning and response network and increase their ability to share information about emerging crises. we also agreed to make significant new investments in african peace keeping. the united states will provide additional equipment to african peace keepers in somalia. and most importantly, a rapid response partnership with the goal of quickly deploying african peace keepers in the support of u.n. or au missions. and we'll join with six countries in recent years that demonstrated as a track record as peace keepers. ghana, tanzania, ethiopia and uganda. we're going to invite countries to join us in supporting this effort because the entire world

has a stake in the success of peace keeping in africa. in closing, i just want to say this has been an extraordinary event, an extraordinary summit. given the success we had this week, we agreed summits like this can be a critical part of our work together going forward. a forcing mechanism for decisions and action. so we agreed that the summit will be a reoccurring event to hold ourselves accountable for our commitments and to sustain our momentum. and i'll strongly encourage my successor to carry on this work because africa must know that they will also have a strong and reliable partner in the united states of america. so with that, i'm going to take a couple questions. i'm going to start with julie pace of "associated press." >> thank you, mr. president, there's been a lot of discussion about the ebola outbreak in west africa. and there's untested and unapproved drug in the u.s. that appears to be holding some of the americans who are infected.

is your administration considering at all sending supplies of this drug if it becomes available to some of these countries in west africa? and can you discuss a bit of ethics of providing an untested foreign drug or providing it only to americans and not to other countries that were harder hit if it could possibly save lives. >> i think we've got to let the science guys and -- and, you know, i don't think all the information's in on whether or not this drug is helpful. what we do know is that the ebola virus, both currently and in the past is controllable if you have a strong public health infrastructure in place. and the countries that have been affected are the first to admit that what's happened here is that the public health systems have been overwhelmed. they weren't able to identify. and then isolate cases quickly

enough. you did not have a strong trust relationship between some of the communities that were affected and public health workers. as a consequence, it spread more rapidly. than has been typical with the periodic outbreaks that occurred previously. but, despite, obviously, the extraordinary pain and hardship of the families and persons who have been affected and despite the fact we have to take this seriously, it is important to remind ourselves this is not an airborne disease. this is one that can be controlled and contained very effectively if we use the right protocols. what we've done is to make sure we're surging, not just u.s. resources, but we've reached out to european partners and partners from other countries working with the w.h.o. let's get all the public health workers we need on the ground,

let's help to bolster the systems they already have in place. let's nip as early as possible any additional outbreaks of the disease. and then, during the course of that process, i think it's entirely appropriate for us to see if there are additional drugs or medical treatments that can improve the survivability of what is a very deadly and obviously brutal disease. we're going to -- we're focusing on the public health approach right now because we know how to do that, but i will continue to seek information about what we're learning with respect to these drugs going forward. >> would you support fast-tracking its approval in the united states? >> i think it's premature for me to say that. i don't have enough information, i don't have enough data right now to offer an opinion on that.

>> the biggest problems we're facing right now have to do with george bush bringing more and more power into the executive branch. that's what i intend to reverse. so my question to you, has congress's inability to do anything significant given you a green light to push the limits of executive power, even a duty to do so. does it bother you more to be accused of being an imperial president of pushing those limits? or to be accused of doing a do-nothing president who couldn't get anything done because he couldn't face a dysfunctional congress? >> well, i think that i never have a green light. i'm bound by the constitution, separation of powers, congress has the power of the purse, for example. i would love to fund a large

infrastructure proposal right now that would put millions of people to work and boost our gdp. we know we've got roads and bridges and airports, electrical grids that need to be rebuilt. but without the cooperation of congress, what i can do is speed up permitting process, for example. i can make sure we're working with the private sector to see if we can channel investment into much-needed projects. but ultimately congress has to pass a budget and authorize spending. so i don't have a green light. what i am consistently going to do is wherever i have the legal authorities to make progress on behalf of middle class americans and folks working to get in the middle class, whether it's by making sure the federal contractors are paying a fair wage to their workers, making

sure that women have the opportunity to get paid the same as men where they're doing the same job. where i have the capacity to expand some of the student loan programs that they've put in place so repayments are more affordable for college graduates, i'm going to seize though opportunities. that's what i think the american people expect me to do. my preference in all these instances is to work with congress, not only can congress do more, it's going to be longer lasting. when you look at, for example, and the inaction, and in particular, the inaction of house republicans when it comes to immigration reform. here's an area where, as i said before, not only the american people want to see action.

not only is there 80% overlap between what republicans say they want and democrats say they want. we actually passed a bill out of the senate that was bipartisan. and in those circumstances. what the american people expect is despite the differences between the parties, there should at least be the capacity to move forward on things we agree on. and that's not what we're seeing right now. in the face of that kind of dysfunction. what i can do is, you know, scour our authorities to try to make progress. and we're going to make sure that every time we take one of these steps that we are working within the confines of my executive power. but i promise you, the american people don't want me just standing around twiddling my

thumbs and waiting. i'm going to continue to take it to the speaker, to the leadership, on both sides and in both chambers to try to come up with formulas where we can make progress even if it's increment incremental. >> you believe you have the power? >> what i certainly recognize with respect to immigration reform and i've said this in the past is that we have a broken system. it's underresourced. and we've got to make choices in terms of how we allocate personnel and resources. if i'm going to, for example, send more immigration judges down to the border to process some of these unaccompanied children that have arrived at the border, then that's coming from some place else. and we're going to have to

prioritize. that's well within our authorities and prosecutorial discretion. my preference would be an actual comprehensive immigration law. and we already have a bipartisan law that would solve a whole bunch of these problems. until that happens, i'm going to have to make choices, that's what i was elected to do. margaret teller, bloomberg. >> thank you, mr. president. along the lines of executive authority, secretary jack lew has previously said the executive branch of government doesn't have the authority to slow or stop corporate inversions. the practice you have called distasteful or unpatriotic. now he is reviewing options to do so, and this is an issue that a lot of businesses including probably some of the ones paying a lot of attention to this summit are interested in. what prompted this apparent reversal. what actions are now under consideration? will you consider an executive

order that would limit or ban such companies from getting federal contracts? and how soon would you like to see treasury act given congress' schedule? >> just to review why we're concerned here, you have accountants going to some big corporations, multinational corporations, but that are clearly u.s. based and have the bulk of their operations in the united states and these accounts are saying, you know, we found a great loophole. if you flip your citizenship to another country, even though it's just a paper transaction, we think we can get you out of paying a whole bunch of taxes. it's not fair. it's not right. the lost revenue to treasury means it's got to be made up somewhere, and that typically is going to be a bunch of hard working americans who either pay

through higher taxes themselves or through reduced services. and the meantime, the company is still using all the services and all the benefits of effectively being a u.s. corporation. they just decided that they go through this paper exercise. there is legislation working its way through congress that would eliminate some of these tax loopholes entirely. and it's true what treasury secretary lew previously said that we can't solve the entire problem administratively. but what we are doing is examining elements to how existing statutes are interpreted by rule or by regulation or tradition or practice. that can at least discourage some of the folks who may be trying to take advantage of this loophole.

and i think it's something that would really bother the average american, the idea that somebody renounces their citizenship but continues to entirely benefit operating in the united states of america. just to avoid paying a bunch of taxes. we're reviewing all of our options as usual. and related to the answer to what i gave jonathan. my preference would be to get something done in congress. and keep in mind, it's still a small number of companies that are resorting to this because i think most american companies are proud to be american, recognize the benefits of being american, and are responsible actors and willing to pay their fair share of taxes to support all the benefits they receive from being here. but, you know, we don't want to see this trend grow.

we don't want companies who have up until now been playing by the rules suddenly looking over their shoulder and saying what some of our competitors are gaming the system. and we need to do it, too. that kind of mentality is something we want to avoid. we want to move quickly as possible. >> the federal contracting seems like an area you've liked -- it's worked well for you on issues like promoting gay rights or contraception policy. is it fair to assume that would be the first thing you would think of? >> margaret, i'm not going to announce specifics in dribs and drabs. when we've done a thorough evaluation, we understand what our authorities are, i'll let you know. chris janson, nbc news. >> thank you, mr. president. russia said today it is going to plan food and agricultural

imports. at the same time, defense secretary chuck hagel said that the massing of troops across the border of ukraine increases the likelihood of an invasion. are sanctions not working? >> well, we don't know yet whether sanctions are working. sanctions are working as intended in putting enormous pressure and strain on the russian economy. that's not my estimation. if you look at the markets, you look at in terms of capital flight. if you look at projections for russian growth. what you see is the economy has ground to a halt somewhere between $100 billion and $200 billion. you're not seeing a lot of investors coming in new to start businesses inside of russia.

and it has presented the choice to president putin as to whether he is going to try to resolve the issues in eastern ukraine through diplomacy and peaceful means, recognizing that ukraine is a sovereign country and it is up ultimately to the ukrainian people to make decisions about their own lives. or alternatively continue on the course he's on, in which case, he's going to be hurting his economy and hurting his own people over the long-term. and in that sense, we are doing exactly what we should be doing. and we're very pleased that our european allies and partners joined us in this process as well as a number of countries around the world. having said all that. the issue's not resolved yet. you still have fighting in

eastern ukraine. civilians are still dying. we've already seen some of the consequences of this conflict in the loss of the malaysian airlines -- airline or jetliner. and the sooner that we can get back on a track in which there are serious discussions taking place to assure that all ukrainians are heard, they can work through the political process, they're represent ed te reforms already offered by the government kiev are implemented to ensure decentralization of power, the sooner we move on tho those, and the sooner president putin recognizes ukraine is an independent country, it's only at that point we can say the problem's truly been solved.

in the meantime, sanctions are working the way they're supposed to. >> the troops on the border seem to have more sophisticated weaponry according to intelligence. does that make you reconsider as a few democrats have suggested providing lethal aid to ukraine given those troop movements? >> keep in mind, the russian army is much larger than the ukrainian army. so the issue here is not whether the ukrainian army has some additional weaponry. they've been fighting a group of separatists who have engaged in terrible violence but who can't match the ukrainian army. >> if you start seeing an invasion by russia, that's obviously a different set of questions. we're not there yet. what we have been doing is

providing a whole host of assistance packages to the ukrainian government and to their military. we will continue to work with them to evaluate on a day-by-day week-by-week basis what they need in order to defend their country to deal with the separatist elements that currently armed by russia. the best thing we can do for ukraine is to try to get back on a political track. "the standard." >> thank you, mr. president. you've been hosting kings, prime ministers, and presidents for the past few days. but back home in africa, media freedom is a threat, it's becoming increasingly difficult.

in ethiopia, dozens of journalists are in prison. in kenya, they have passed very bad laws targeting the media. what can the international community do to ensure that we have a strong media in africa? and more importantly, to secure the release of the journalists. and two, so many countries in africa are facing threats of terror. mentioned a few measures you're going to take. but what can the international community do also to neutralize terror threats in nigeria, kenya. could that be the reason? your visits to africa? thank you. >> i'm sorry, what was the last part of the question? >> could the terror threats be the reasons you have skipped kenya in your visits to africa? >> oh, no, no, no. well, first of all, with respect to journalists and the media,

the last session we had on good governance emphasized that good governance means everybody has a voice. government is transparent and thereby accountable. and even though leaders don't always like it, the media plays a crucial role in assuring people that they have the proper information to evaluate the policies that their leaders are pursuing. and so we have been very consistent in pushing governments, not just in africa, but around the world to respect the right of journalists to practice their trade as a critical part of civil society and a critical part of any democratic norm.

the specific issue of the journalists in europe, we've been clear publicly and privately that they should be released. and we have been troubled by some of the laws that have been passed around the world that seem to restrict the ability of journalists to pursue stories. efforts to control the internet. parts of what's happened over the last decade or two is that new media, new technology allow people to get information that previously would've never been accessible or only to a few specialists and now people can punch something up on the internet and pull up information that's relevant to their own lives and their own societies and communities. so we're going to continue to

push back against these efforts. as is true on a whole range of issues. and i said this in the past. many times we will work with countries even though they're not perfect on every issue. and we find that in some cases engaging a country that generally is a good partner but is not performing optimally when it comes to all the various categories of human rights, you know, that we can be effective by working with them on certain areas. and criticizing them and trying to elicit improvements in other areas. and even among countries that generally have strong human rights records that are areas where there are problems. that's true of the united states, by the way. and so, the good news and we heard this in the summit is that

more and more countries are recognizing that in the absence of good governance. in the absence of accountability and transparency, that's not only going to have an effect domestically on the legitimacy of a government. it's going to have an effect on economic development and growth. because ultimately, in an information age open societies have the capacity to innovate and educate and move faster and be part of the global marketplace more than closed societies do over the long-term. i believe that. now, with respect to terrorism, i think there's uniform concern of terrorist infiltration in

many countries throughout africa. obviously, there's a concern that we have globally. a lot of the initiatives we put forward were designed to partner so that countries, first and foremost can deal with these problems within their own borders or regionally. and the united states doesn't have a desire to expand and create a big footprint inside of africa. what we do want to make sure we can do is partner with the african union, with individual countries to build up their capacity. and one of the encouraging things in the sessions was a recognition that fighting terrorism also requires security forces that are professional, disciplined, that themselves are not engaging in human rights violations. that part of the lesson we've all learned about terrorism is that, you know, it is possible

in reaction to terrorism to actually accelerate the disease. if the response is one that alienates populations or particular ethnic groups and particular religions. the work that we're doing including the security initiatives that i announced today i think can make a big difference in that direction. it's not just a matter of us providing equipment or better training, that's a part of it. part of it is also making sure the security forces and intelligence operations are coordinated. and they're not alienating populations. last point i'll make is on good governance, one of the best is a society in which everyone feels as if they have a stake in the existing order and feel their

grievances can be resolved through political means rather than violence. that we use for a strong stable and prosperous effort. >> last question, jerome. >> thank you, mr. president. earlier today prime minister described the operation as justified and proportionate. do you agree with these two words? and israel and hamas, over the cease-fire, do you believe a cease-fire can be achieved? what exact role can the u.s. play in talks? >> i've said from the beginning that no country would tolerate rockets being launched into their cities. and as a consequence, i have

consistently supported israel's right to defend itself. and that includes doing what it needs to do to prevent rockets from landing on population centers and at preventing tunnels from being dug under their territory that could be used to launch terrorist attacks. i also think it's important to remember that hamas acts extraordinary irresponsibly when it is citing rocket launches in population centers. you know, putting populations at risk because of that particular military strategy. now, having said all that, i've also expressed my distress at what's happened to innocent civilians, including women and children during the course of this process and i'm very glad that we have at least

temporarily achieved a cease-fire. the question now is how do we build on this temporary secession of violence. we plan to support the progress taking place in egypt. i think the short-term goal has to be to make sure that rocket launches do not resume. that the work that the israeli government did in closing off these tunnels has been completed. and that we are now in the process of helping to rebuild a gaza that's been really badly damaged as a consequence of this conflict. long-term, there has to be a recognition that gaza cannot

sustain itself permanently closed off from the world. and incapable of providing some opportunity, jobs, economic growth for the population that lives there, particularly given how dense that population is, how young that population is. we're going to have to see a shift in opportunity for the people of gaza. i have no sympathy for hamas. i have great sympathy for ordinary people who are struggling within gaza. and the question then becomes can we find a formula in which israel has greater assurance that gaza will not be a launching pad for further attacks, perhaps more dangerous attacks as technology develops into their country? but at the same time, ordinary palestinians have some prospects

for an opening of gaza so they do not feel walled off and incapable of pursuing basic prosperity. i think there are formulas that are available but they're going to require risks on the part of political leaders, they're going to require a slow rebuilding of trust, which is obviously very difficult in the aftermath of the kind of violence we've seen. so i don't think we get there right away. but the u.s. goal right now would be to make sure that the cease-fire holds, that gaza can be, can begin the process of rebuilding, and that some measures are taken so that -- so that the people of gaza feel

some sense of hope. and the people of israel feel confident that they're not going to have a repeat of the kind of rocket launches that we've seen over the last several weeks. and secretary kerry has been in consistent contact with all the parties involved. we expect we will continue to be trying to work as diligently as we can to move the process forward. it is also going to need to involve the palestinian leadership in the west bank. i have no sympathy from hamas. i have great sympathy for some of the work that has been done in cooperation with israel and the international community by the palestinian authority. and they've shown themselves to be responsible. they have -- they have recognized israel. they are prepared to move forward to arrive at a two-state

solution. i think he's sincere in his desire for peace. but they have been also been weakened, i think, by this process. the populations in the west bank may have also lost confidence or lost a sense of hope in terms of moving forward. we have to rebuild that, as well. and they are the delegation that's leading the palestinian negotiators. and my hope is that we will be engaging with them to try to move what has been a very tragic situation over the last several weeks into a more constructive path. all right? thank you very much, everybody. and thank you all who participated in the africa summit. it was an outstanding piece of work. and i want to remind folks in case they've forgotten of the

incredible young people that participated in our program. we're very proud of you and looking forward to seeing the great things you do when you go home. that was president obama's news conference from the conclusion of the african leaders summit in washington. let's check in with our man on the ground there, eamon javers. eamon, bunch of things sensitive to the market. let's start with inversions. seemed like he reiterated his stance or do you think he even toughened it? >> clearly, jim, he toughened it. said inversions are not fair, not right. and the treasury department is exploring all the options of what they can do administrative without congress here. now that's a story that broke earlier in the week. the president signaling here today, he's very clearly interested in figuring out ways to stop or put a drag on this inversion process. what they're really worried about at the white house and the treasury is mass inversions. and the hit that will take on the united states treasury, jim. >> you know, it's interesting, and the question chris jansing

asked. it is interesting, when we asked jack lew, he point-blank said to me, he did not think there was anything that could be done from an executive. that it had be done by congress. i'm still trying to understand how it's possible to flick a switch. maybe through an irs rule making process and definitions about what it means to have a domicile overseas, that they could just change this. what were they waiting for? >> well, there's a lot of lawyers here in washington, jim. the lawyers are going to be poring over this to figure out if there is any administrative action. what they were signaling before, they wanted congress to do it. and what you do in these negotiations, never concede the point. never concede you have the authority if you want the other guy to do it. now that it looks clear there's financial pain here coming to the u.s. treasury, they're going to start to admit they want to do something themselves. what they can do and what they're going to ultimately land on are the big questions here. one of the possibilities out there would be something

involving federal contractors and saying, you know, federal contractors can't do this, i'm going to try to put a limit on that. they might be able to go further than that depending on what the lawyers tell them. >> walgreen's, which renounced the idea and could've done a change in domicile has many, many contracts involving pharmaceuticals, which, of course, heavily regulated by the government and also medicare and just the whole package of how americans are reimbursed sometimes. one other thing, eamon, i did not get the sense that the president is backing away from the notion of sanctions or negotiating with putin. seems like, once again, this thing is just staying at least from the president's point of view in an economic form, not a military form. >> yeah, the president said flat out, the sanctions are working as they're intended to work here when he was asked about that. then when he was asked about the prospect of an all out russian invasion of the ukraine, simply said, look, we're not there yet. the president not tipping his hand on what the u.s. response there would be. he was asked if the u.s. would move forward with lethal aid to

the ukrainians. clearly doesn't want to go there. he is saying the sanctions are working as of right now. >> thank you so much, eamon. terrific to talk to you. very busy hour here on "mad money." but "american greed" is next. and i always like to say there's a bull market somewhere, you have to find it right here on "mad money." and i will see you tomorrow.

>> narrator: in this episode of "american greed"... the brooklyn family business that saved an iowa town... >> there's money flowing into the community. >> narrator: ...but there are whispers of threats, extortion, and shocking child-labor abuses. >> the only way to make that business work was to exploit the workers. >> narrator: propping it all up -- a massive $26 million financial fraud. >> it's dizzying watching the money go around. i mean, it's a very complicated shell game. >> narrator: the man at the center of it all, sholom rubashkin -- dutiful son or corporate crook?