u.s. ambassador mark ginsberg. ambassador ginsberg, in your opinion, is this the right thing to do, to give aid to the rebels? >> larry, the problem is we have put ours in a houdini complex. we have straight-jacketed ours, now we don't know how to get ourselves out of a mess. we are engaged in a proyy war. by providing arms to rebels at this late date, we are going to reverse what essentially is a imminent battlefield defeat for the rebels and this red line has now been so discussed by so many countries. there has been adequate evidence sometime ago, you know, the administration really deserves a big party slip for being so late to coming to conclusions here. >> let me just ask you, in the national city council release the press release on this, it uses the phrase "moderate syrian rebels." they're going to help moderate syrian rebels. what is a moderate syrian rebel? i thought there were al qaeda and all kind of jihadists? >> well, you got two groups essentially fighting for the bad guys. one is a bad front largely taking over most of the fighting on behalf of the rebels, that's been a dilemma that we face. because have you this al-nussyra organization, which has been banned as a terrorist organization. then you have really reasonable objective responsible democratic-ing sirn leaning -- democratic leaning syrians. the rebels are at a disadvantage on all accounts. >> ambassador mark ginsberg, what about the chemical weapons, let's go back to that. sarin was the one fingered in the news today. what can we do about those weapons? >> the problem is even if we appoint a no-fly zone or essentially try to take control of these weapons, it would take by the pentagon's own estimates 55,000 troops to be placed and gain control over these, syria has the largest cache of chemical weapons in the entire middle east. then on the one hand, you put the american soldiers on the ground. they're sitting ducks between the rebel forces and the iranian and hezbollah forces. it's not a very pretty picture at this point. >> all right. thanks, ambassador mark ginsberg, we appreciate it. >> sure. >> now another big story coming out of washington today, the supreme court unanimously rolling human gene cannot be patented. it will have long lasting investor information for the biotech following industry. cnbc's bertha coombs joins us now with all the details. good evening, bertha. >> good evening, larry. the supreme court ruling that gene dna material can't be patented but synthetic genes can. this news became news last month when angelina jolie had confirmed she had bracka genes. the court unanimously struck down those patents. the writing is that dna is a product of nature and not patent eligible merely bus it has been isolated, the justices ruled dna modified in a lab is patentable, referring myriad's innovation. myriad hailed that part of the decision. at first investors did, too. take a look at that stocks. at first it went to highs, myriad fell down 5%. quest diagnostics saying it now plans to offer a brack 151 and 2 tests later this year. they say myriad's test is going to be hard to match. >> the devil is really in the details. you need to tow what all those mutations mean. without the benefit of having a database, which myriad has and which a competitor at this point has not, it's going to be really difficult to argue that a, say, $800 competing product is even equivalent to the $3,000 test. >> yep, that $3,000 test is key for myriad. it brought in $450 million in revenue last year that 75% of their sales. larry, clearly the supreme court has opened the door here. >> all right. bertha, thank you very much. we appreciate the update. by the way, today's decision is a big blow to free market innovation. ultimately, that's going to stifle private sector investment that is so critical to funding major medical discoverys. let's debate this whole proposition. joining us tonight david resnik from the law firm nixon peabody, attorney mitch epner from willk oslander for the full hour. hitch lowry, editor of the national review magazine. >> at least can you say national review. >> and the author of the "lincoln unbound." i have been a contributor and have been many years. mitch, what do you make of this decision? patent law change now from this decision in the biotech area? >> yes. this is a big deal if you are in the genomics field, if are you in the diagnostics field, if are you in the field of putting together human genome testing with pharmacology, in other words, personalizing medicine. all of these things are very challenged today and i would say that it is, as you said, going to be much more difficult for capital raises in this area because investors will be very nervous that they will ever be able to recoup the enormous sums of money. >> it's the recouping of the money that really matters. david resnik, welcome to the show, my own sense, i am no expert on gone, i do know something about finance. in recent years, legislatures and courts have been cutting back on the length of patents. many people believe that has caused us to lose our innovative edge. is that the very thing that's going to happen here in the gone question? >> i actually don't think that it's as bad as some have made it out to be. they show you immediately took this as a victory. i think it's actually the best realistic decision that myriad and the biotech industry could have hoped for. if you look at it, genomic dna is not patent-eligible. synthetic dna is patent-eligible. many of these were filed 15 years ago the human genome were made public in the early 2000s. the patents will expire if 2015. for the one is filing on genom ec dna because it's already been in the hierarchy of the public. >> this sets a precedent. this is more than just what's going on today. this sets, i think, a dangerous precedent for the drug companies, the pharmas and the biotech companies. basically, it seems to me, this waters down the rate of return that investors get. they need some breathing room. do you know the united states has fallen behind in patents all across the board. this is something that troubles me enormously. this is yet another example of an attack on innovators and investors. >> i don't disagree with you, larry. the recent supreme court decisions have been very patent unfriendly. if you look a year ago, the decision in prometheusv.mayo was directly related to diagnostics. it was a very, very bad decision for patents and for the diagnostics industry. >> rich epner, we are losing our competitive edge. that's all i said. those patents were about to expire, i agree with that. the court the patent court has been giving these things out now for many years. now the supreme court is stepping in to stop this. this bodes poorly for american innovation. this is not free market capitalism. >> well, one of the things that companies are involved in this sphere need is certainty about what the rules are going to be and it's very clear that there is a disconnect between what the patented trademark office the pto, is doing and what the supreme court said they should be doing. you have the bizarre situation where the pto said this should be patentable and the solicitor general's office stood up in front of the supreme court and said, no, it shouldn't. in that sort of an environment, it is very difficult to know what the rules are going to be and to see large scale investments. >> all right. what do you think about this, rich lowry? >> well, i don't disagree with the policy concerns all of you are raising. as a layman who knows nothing about patents or genetics, i would say, why was a unanimous decision won? two, doesn't that seem like a very intuitive distinction between something naturally existing plier to anyone inventing it and something synthetic and created by man. >> they say that it's really a molecular discovery that they made and somebody has to make them. it is kind of interesting. there are 25,000 genes. i don't know anything about this. i'm reading from the various news reports, 25,000 genes out there, so people that take those genes and turn them into application such as this testing for breast cancer and ovarian cancer is a hem of a thing. it just seems to me, the whole patent system, going back to ape lincoln, we will go back to your book. lincoln wouldn't have wanted this, he would have wanted them to be rewarded. >> lincoln said pat tents were one of the greatest discoveries of all human kind. >> now you are talking. that's what this is all about. >> you have to remember, these patents have been issued for 30 years from the u.s. pat tent office t. fact that now after 30 years the supreme court has taken a position that, and this issue has been brought up to congress, every single 84, there is legislation proposed bank, prohibiting patenting of genetic material. every year it's turned down. >> every year, listen, for the past 30 years the trademark, patented trademark office has basically been granting patents to all related dna sequences, okay. that's been for 30 years. i want to know, why suddenly is this being reversed? and the fact is, this court would be -- let me ask you, this court could be weak on business as i've always suggested, this court has no sympathy for business? i heard weird things even from conservatives, like my friend antonia scalia. i don't like this court on business. >> what i'd like to say is part of the reason this came to the fork was there was a ground swell to the people, it led through new york and all the way up through the system. because it costs $3,000 to get a test to see whether or not the gene that is in your body is in your body. and while somebody like angelina jolie could afford to get that sort of testing, most americans couldn't get it. >> those numbers will come down. eventually those numbers will come down. >> those numbers are covered by insurance. >> they will not come down, larry -- >> the whole history of these invention, after the initial period, they make these products available to more people by cutting the price. >> larry, they wouldn't come down until the patent expired. >> now that -- >> the patent was about to expire. >> the patent was going to expire in -- >> the point i'm makeing is if you now live in fear of patents not being girl. it's not an expiration. if you think it won't be given, are you not going to invest in the project. one more point, david resnik, this may or may not be true, one of the accounts i read, okay, it costs $3,300 bucks for the breast cancer test. 95% of those people are insured. most of those people don't even have copayments and, therefore, most of the costs for women that go into these tests is about $100 bucks per person. that's the way this thing goes out. itself the way the company makes the calculation. $100 bucks a person. sounds pretty reasonable to me. >> my understanding is most people it is covered by their insurance. >> right. >> and no copayment. so you are talking about a relatively inexpensive proublg, which, yes, eventually will be on the generic market and come down anyways. can i say this, then i got to go. the whole history of inventions in this country, all right, let's look at iphones, ipads, anything to do with computers, for example. let's look at televisions for example. i grew up in the 1950s with noncolor. the whole innovations of entrepreneurship is the price eventually falls so the consumer he demand rises, we get things that we can support. that's what is missing from this thing t. price action always comes down. that's innovation. lincoln would have understood. bring it. >> he would have understood it. these supreme court justices are no good on business. thank you. now, the public's anger, not mine, the public's anger is rising over the nsa under surveillance program, all right, now, very interesting. polls have completely shifted. 53% now disapprove of the nsa under surveillance program. according to latest from gallop. speaking of shifting, listen to what then senator bind had to say about nsa snooping back in 2006 when president bush was in charge. >> everyone i have been spoken to briefed on the matter says empl e everything they want for the do to deal with al qaeda is able to be done under fisa maybe with a small amemento fisa. this idea that no court will review, no congress will know with ewill trust the president and the vice president of the united states that they're doing the right thing, don't count me in on. okay. very interesting, as you know, president obama and vice president biden are now supporting the very nsa program that they're talking about. in fact, hook, line and sinker. we'll be right back. i'm kudlow. ♪ >> senator dianne feinstein wants the nsa to release a list of thwarted terrorist attacks to prove how well the program is working. nbc news michael isikopf jones us. >> good evening, larry. >> the public i think is starting not to believe a word of it. >> well, first of all, you have to remember that senator feinstein has been a backer of the program she has a vested interest in showing these programs have been successful. so she's pushing for more disclosure of those, of these presumed thwarted terrorist attacks. the problem when you get these list, it's hard to evaluate. you get such little information. we used to get them during the bush years about the enhanced interrogation programs. as you know, there has been plenty of contention about whether they actually did thwart the kind of attacks tarp made, lots of second-guessing about that. this remains inherrintally selective disclosurement at the same time what we are not hearing from senator feinstein and people in the administration is the release of other key do you means that might shed a less flattering light on this program. in particular, we just learned yesterday, larry, about the existence of an 86 of page opinion by the fisa court written october 3rd, 2011, finding aspects of the under surveillance program were unconstitutional in violates violation of the 4th amendment. we have not seen that opinion. the fisa court said they have no objection to releasing the opinion. if justice department has been reluctant to do so. >> stay right there. first of all the call, gallop 53 to 37% disapprove of this. a fox pom, 62% say, 62% say the government secret phone records of americans is unacceptable and an invasion of private property. okay. those are real bad numbers for the support of this nsa. what is your take? >> well, obviously, public opinion is still volatile here. we need to have this debate aired out in public. i'm sympathetic to the goals of this program. i'm sympathetic to the program, basically. but when you have something so massive with so many implications going on for years as a matter of routine, then i think in a small democratic society it should be out in the open to the extent possible. yes, the administration is right when they say there have been some checks here, have you the fisa court the congress briefed. the fisa court apparently approves almost everything and you have -- >> there is no trust. first of all, there is a cross rough here t.irs lies. which in effect is more snooping really has hurt the nsa case. sending, clappers lie, clappers lie in front of the congressional committee. very damaging. third, obama has not sold this program, he, you know, the first time this came up, you watched his news conference, he was parcing his words like every three minutes, he would come up with a new word. you know he goes into that lawyerly crouch that he does. i think the public has just had it with all this. >> yeah, you get the sense he wanted to maintain some olympian distance from this as he does so many other things, but you are right, irs casts appalled suspicion over all of this. the irs weren't honest initially. they were asked whether they were targeting over repeatedly a number of years. they said no. their initial explanation that it was all low level employees in cincinnati has completely exploded. then have you clapper in the nsa. at the very leevths find an honest way. >> he knew it was coming. clapper. it should have been done in an open hearing, weiden gave him a heads-up. he's quite sensible on the liberal side. we missed fort hood the boston marathon. let's take the boston marathon, there were phone calls and e-mails. where was the nasa under surveillance, the national security under surveillance? sample we don't know. we're never going to be perfect in all instances, maybe dianne feinstein is right it has spoiled plots. i'm perfectly prepared to believe that. but it's so ironic you have a president so devoted to government and so devoted to increasing trust on government and you have it i roded on all fronts because of the wide swath of people, because of the incompetence and the overreach. >> i have two words on the matter, rand paul, rand paul is kicking butt. a week ago, these polls were reversed and 50-some odd percent supported it. now, over 50% don't support it. rand paul. what do you make of it? >> i am not anywhere where rand paul is on foreign policy. >> i understand. >> we are in a rand paul moment. if i had to make an extremely premature political prediction that i will probably regret, he will be the front runner for their republican nomination for some significant stretch in 2015, i believe. he is hitting a lot of buttons out there. he is working it very hard, both publicly and in ways you are not seeing in public. >> i can't agree with him more. i am hoping somehow this program can be worked out. they may have to loosen up. there may have to be some xhiesz compromises made. at the very least, they should list these dozen things. boy do they need that. michael isikoff, michael. >> you asked me to stay. >> i will give you the last word. on this issue of rand paul and on the issue of putting out the actual thwarted plots, if you could be quick for me, thwarted plots, michael isikoff, will they do it? >> i think they will. the problem is we will get it. we won't know what to make of it. whether or not there was other ways the same information could have been gotten or what aspects of the program led to those thwarted plots and is eight part of what many people have found overreaching? and i do want to come back to that october 3rd, 2011, fisa court opinion, 86 page, really significant and that's something we have seen or even known about until now. >> boy that, is the rand paul document. oh my good. anyway, michael isikoff thank you as always, rich lowry will hang around him look at this, massive explosion in a chemical plant in louisiana today, we got the latest on that story and the update on the breaking news on the syria chemical weapons story all next on kudlow. out there owning it. the ones getting involved and staying engaged. they're not afraid to question the path they're on. because the one question they never want to ask is "how did i end up here?" i started schwab for those people. people who want to take ownership of their investments, like they do in every other aspect of their lives. good afternoon. chase sapphire. (push button tone) this is stacy from springfield. oh whoa. hello? yes. i didn't realize i'd be talking to an actual person. you don't need to press "0," i'm here. reach a person, not a prompt whenever you call chase sapphire. why should saturday night have all the fun? get two times the points on dining in restaurants, with chase sapphire preferred. the great outdoors... ...and a great deal. thanks to dad. (gasp) nope. aw! guys! grrrr let's leave the deals to hotels.com. (nice bear!) ooo! that one! nice! got it! oh my gosh this is so cool! awesome! perfect! yep, and no angry bears. the perfect place is on sale now. up to 30% off. only at hotels.com all right, let's get an update on that news on syria, cnbc's ber that coombs is back with that story. what you got? >> good evening, larry. the white house now saying syria president al-assad has crossed that so-called red line. american intelligence analysts now believe assad has used chemical weapons, sarin gas against his own people t. president obama said the u.s. wouldable when syria crossed that red line. one dead and 75 injured after an explosion at a chemical plant near baton rouge. the plant makes highly flammable gases which caused a huge fire after the explosion. firefighters did get it under control. people living in the area were asked to live inside and keep their windows closed. now, officials are saying they are not dangerous levels of the chemical in the air. and a ruling fox search light violated the law with its use of unpaid incurrency on the set of the movie "back swann." the judge said they were working as a paid employee would and, therefore, violating what should have been strictly an educational experience. the worry, of course, that this ruling could lead to your company's offering these kind of internships, which a lot of us have done. i did one. that's how i got my first sort of glimpse of how it wompblthd i was in high school at the pbs, broadcast, i was starry united states about a two-camera newscast. >> i was there in the 1970s, then robert seidel to fill the seat of robert f. kennedy and senator gudell was defeated because he moved left. left. left. left. all i can say in 1970, didn't we all? last last. >> the interesting thing is -- >> didn't we all, i have to 'fess up. >> these days, google interns make nearly $6,000 a month, granted, it's a very competitive situation. you got to be some sort of program genius. >> i'm with you. i think most journalists are. if are you a journalist, the chances are your best and most important jobs to your development as a journalist. you were unpaid or barely making a salary at all. >> or in any job to get a glimpse at what it's like to do that job and decide what to do. volunteering on a campaign, made me realize, i wanted to be a journalist rather than in office. >> i have to say, i didn't know this, senator charles gudell's son is now the nfl commissioner roger goodell. i don't believe i meet e met him. i am no longer bib liberal. thank you to bertha coombs. we had a couple years. we all went through that stage t. surge in american oil production have reached levels no one would believe years ago. it is also making a pot of people suddenly rich. we will talk to the man who helps the suddenly wealthy deal with it. up next, our co-host rich lowry the fascial review. he has a fabulous new book about lincoln and how he believed and supported free markets and patents, by the way. so i would say, as always, don't forget, free market capitalism is the beth path to prosperity. that's what ape lincoln knew the "kudlow report." we're coming right back. . drill, trip, drill, that's right. the u.s. oil production grew by more than a million barrels a day last year to an incredible 8.9 million barrels per day. that's right. the largest increase in the world. the largest in american history or at least going back to the 1960s. this record growth was mainly fuelled by the growth of fracking. so let's talk about this. this is big stuff. john is back. dan greenhouse is back. eti chief economist and global strategist. my co-host is hitch lowry editor of "the national review." and author of the new book "lincoln unbound." john, first of all, when do we get to 11 million, we are almost at 9. if i add canada in, all i want to do is surpass saudi arabia. >> in terms of a north america? >> yeah. >> if we can help out mexico more, president obama was down there, hoping to get more policy out of that trip. of course, it didn't happen. >> of course, not. >> in the next five years, larry, we should be in the number one spot ahead of saudi arabia and russia for the next spot. >> that is completely awesome. now, among its many benefits. it has job benefits, employment benefits, low inflation benefits. it has no trade deficit benefits. it has strong dollar benefits. >> thank you very much. so this is like a totally bullish thing. my question is, is this another reason to buy the stockmarket if have you buy and hold ideas? >> i'll say two thing t. first is one thing you left out, it's good for wages. >> oh, yes. >> wages. >> huge. >> the energy sector grew maybe 6/7% compared to virtually nothing elsewhere. but you can't go to a meeting with anybody. when people talk about what drives us into the next reagan-voelker secular boom if stock, inevitably, the energy sector is where people look as the next reason to be bullish on a multi-year framework. i agree, it's not the sole input, of course. if you want to be excited about the united states, this is what you should be excited about. >> if the government keeps hands off, john, now, the epa, this is a horrible thing to say t.epa so far has done a good thing. they looked at fracking, they studied it again, they said it's fine. they didn't blame poisonous water on it or nothing. they haven't opened up federal lands, on private hands, it basically left them alone. so you got what, dakotas, texas, you got pennsylvania. if this dopey dope here in new york, let me put that in for the heck of it. you are a political genius, andrew cuomo, he a pam of yours the government of new york? he will not pass the fracking law. i want to ask you, he is completely intimidated by robert f. kennedy, jr. and his left wing radical enviro pals. >> i have to look at it as a play employing to the democratic base, if he runs, but i would think a democrat if for no other reason than the one you mentioned on, wages and these fantastic blue collar jobs, he would be doing somersaults over this. one thing in the journal story today, they said we have all this new production. we have this weird supply gluts in certain places, it's not getting others, because we're not building enough pipeline. >> who have stepped up is the railroad companies, by the end of the year, there will be a million a day, riding the rails, getting it out to the east coast, the west coast, the gulf coast. >> real quick, this an environmental thing? i don't understand this. is there not enough capital? we need pipelines that get the oil to the east coast. instead of buying brent crude, they can buy west texas. >> it takes rights of capital. rights of ways have to happen. we see pipelines burst. when you have that happen, it works against industry. i do believe it has to be highly regulated, highly observed, the oil industry can be its worst enemy. affects the spills. >> i'm glad you have knocked the oil industry. we will talk about that later on. give me jeff basso from cleveland from spiro investors in cleveland, which helps beneficiaries handle their new-found wealth. you have ordinary americans through the land sales or royalties whatever get rich quick. like all of a sudden they could be multi-millionaires. so, first of all, what do you tell them? you find these guys what do you do with them? >> first after all, larry, thanks for having me on the program. i tell them just about every client we have this is about delaying or managing delaying your instant gratification. it's a different group of people. >> that's not to say middle class people with $50,000 a year aren't in the stockmarket. for the most part, it's not their thing. what do they do? what do they say to you? in other words, you come to them. you want to help them finance whatever the rest of their life, their retirement, i don't know, these guys making a couple million bucks a year or at least a couple million bucks. do they resist you? do they think are you some city slicker from cleveland? what happens? >> i think from cleveland, it would be the first time i would be called a city slicker. we love that here. we appreciate that. >> you know john d. rockefeller was in cleveland, he invented the oil business in pennsylvania. you know at one time cleveland was an industrial city even though the lefties brought it to the ground. that's a different segment. so what happened, did they resist your advice? >> truthfully, they don't, it's largely because of our experience in this particular area. so in ohio, carroll county, jefferson county are areas that our firm particularly has a history. so my father happens to be from jefferson county. our owner is from there. i think we get a little more leniency on that front than our peers do, probably why we have been more successful thus far. the other part is how do you approach these people? this is not the first time we dealt with people that has a median income in carroll county. it's not the first time we have dealt with somebody with $40,000 who has come into wealth. how do you communicate and educate that person? >> tell me quickly, how do you communicate them? >> i think the easiest thing is to treat your parents t. founder of off firm used to say this, communicate with your mother or watts father, that's with respect. i think that's the core most fundamental thing you have to do if you try to educate somebody, respect their intelligence level what they have to offer. try to communicate with them. >> you can teach them? >> that's absolutely true. >> we can all be taught. dan greenhour, let me come back to you on this, in some sense, this is probably the most bullish thing we have seen in a drab economy, the last 10, 15 years, in a 2% economy or even less, doesn't this change the game? i mean, you see these numbers, you listen to people in the world, it's for real, it's not going away, doesn't this change the game? >> it professionally can. the one caveat i include in this conversation is for the energy sector as a whole, mining of all sorts is less than 9 million people employed in that sector, for oil and gas it's less than 200,000? so could it be larger? absolutely. will it be larger, we hope so? >> what about the spillover the throwoff, you were talking about the railroads. >> and manufacturing. does it reduce the cost for manufacturers an help industry in that way? >> there is no doubt about that. there could be a petro chemical renaissance here. because it's not talked about what is not sexy, larry, you get natural gas and oil and natural gas liquids. itself the stuff that goes directly into making the plastics that make our phones and this table. it's cheap stuff. >> we have to get out of here. >> no other country will be able to compete with us, maybe generations. >> there is, pardon the phrase, a multiplier? >> less money on gas. >> a lot of people not rich will get rich, which i just love, because this program is all about getting rich, i think. jeff balbasa, john kilkoff. thanks. a big stockmarket rally today. pretty good economic news even despite the fact that japan crashed, we did well. maybe this will be what it takes to break the fed and the japanese obsession. that's next up on "kudlow." hey kevin...still eating chalk for heartburn? yeah... try new alka seltzer fruit chews. they work fast on heartburn and taste awesome. these are good. told ya! i'm feeling better already. [ male announcer ] new alka seltzer fruits chews. enjoy the relief! i work for 47 different companies. well, technically i work for one. that company, the united states postal service® works for thousands of home businesses. because at usps.com® you can pay, print and have your packages picked up for free. i can even drop off free boxes. >> all right, u.s. stocks in major rally mode today despite a 6.4% job in the japanese market overnight. the dow added 181 points t. s&p jumped 24 points. what do you make of today's move higher? let's bring in our experts. we have dan greenhouse, global strategist and alan vam dez from dme securities. we got to kind of go bullet lightning round fast. the japanese think they didn't stop us at all. why is that? >> i think a lot of traders looked at it, they're pulling back, seeing what's happening to their markets pulling down. they say the feds can't pull down, let's buy the market. >> that's an example. if bernanke is a bad boy and pulls back too fast, that's what will happen. therefore, he won't do it. >> that's the thinking. the feds are watching this. they will keep the medal to the metal. >> do you agree with that logic? it's interesting in there it's something that rich lowry and i were talking about, rich lowry author of "lincoln -- >> i have a life long friend. >> like an unpaid intern. >> when he did it before the commercial, i cracked up. >> please continue. >> i think the "wall street journal" that hit at the end of the day was very clear. whether they taper or not or slow asset purchases, they don't like that word or not t. threat of higher interest rates is nowhere to be seen for at least 20142015. >> absolutely. bernanke is going to clarify that. >> i think he will have to. >> because they have been bumbling along, the numbers look good, retail sales, good, import prices are falling. we're in the 2s, there is no inflation. what is your outlook for profits? in other words, are you a bull up there? before i even ask you for a stock recommendation are you a bull? >> i think as long as the feds have a conif you, i'm a bull. i think we see when it pulls back, it gets shaky. overall the economy is better, slow, 2% isn't great. we are doing better than four years ago, that's for sure. >> energy stocks, we were talking energy before. you got an energy stock you like? >> i do. i like mobile. >> exxon mobile. >> yes. >> the supreme court ruled out patents for genes. all right. on the other hand the pharma index the index went up today the biotech index went up today, would you boy those areas, buy those stocks despite what the supremes did? >> i like them. i think the biotechs. i like the whole market in here, larry. >> you do? are you as bullish in. >> biotech has been the best performing sector, subsector. >> has the supreme court not had any effect on that? >> the answer is no. ultimately, that's the ultimate arbiter of whether something like this would be bad for the stockmarket. >> what is on your buy list? >> i don't think individual stocks. i do that. we still like tech, which has not worked perfectly. we like health care. we like investors. to the point of ben bernanke, at the end of the day, buying $75 billion worth of bonds, buying 65 billion, we don't necessarily see the difference. they're still extremely accommodative. >> there is symbolic value. i think you are a little bit of history, 1937, the federal reserve prematurely took gold money out of the banking system creating recession inside a depression. i think that's in the market. the stockmarket memory is quite long. we don't want them to do that again. why don't they wait and let them two grow faster. why don't they wait? >> they are starting to get concerned about not inflation the inflation is going the wrong way, starting to get concerned about market functioning an balance sheet stability. they're not concerned the economic data is not cooperating. they're concerned thooir they're screwings thing up. >> they probably did screw things up in the interest rate markets. this is no time to look back. they will do what they will do. they will let the bond run off. we will figure out in another segment how the fed willing get out of it. nice the see you again. the free market pro business side of abe lincoln, a major theme of rich lowry's new book. we will tell you all about it. first up the video clip everyone is talking about. i have to do it. check out new jersey governor chris christie getting big laughs with our nbc colleague jimmy fallon last night. >> the decisions that need to be made in washington are too great to be determined by an appointee for 18 months. what we don't need is another unelected politician just sitting around in congress. whether it's in the senate or the house of representatives. >> mmm. take it from my man the love gov. when he sits around the house of representatives, he really sits around the house of representatives. e son picks up ? [thinking] i'm still working. he's retired. i hope he's saving. i hope he saved enough. who matters most to you says the most about you. at massmutual we're owned by our policyowners, and they matter most to us. whether you're just starting your 401(k) or you are ready for retirement, we'll help you get there. hoo-hoo...hoo-hoo. hoo-hoo hoo. sir... i'll get it together i promise... heeheehee. jimmy: ronny, how happy are folks who save hundreds of dollars switching to geico? ronny:i'd say happier than the pillsbury doughboy on his way to a baking convention. get happy. get geico. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more. president obama should take a lesson from one of the greats, that being abraham lincoln, he was a wealth-producing president. we are back with rich lowry and his great new book "lincoln unbound." you took this angle, more of an economic angle to lincoln. i don't know anybody has done that before. uconn clued what? >> well, my book is about abraham lincoln as the foremost apos him of american opportunity. it plays out, there is an amazing rise of ob security, how it underverted all his policy, really, including an opposition to slavery. what we can learn from it today t. key thing to know, he grows up in the back woods, where most people are sub sis tans farmers. okay. a perfectly fine life, not a great one if you have ambitions to do something else besides farming. one of len con's major ambitions was to blow up that world through checking it with marks. you are a farmer there. without canal, railroads or steamboats, there is no way to get goods to the market. >> he favored all of that. >> all of that. >> as a president, he actually subsidized some of that. >> he supported that in illinois, subsidizing the can also and railroads. as soon as the railroad touches these hinterland areas, then the market comes. are you a farmer, instantly, you get manufacturing from the east which wasn't available, clothing from the east wasn't available. how are you going to pay for it? you need cash. you begin growing the market. you get this vibrant, diverse economy, people with all sorts of talents and interests have a way up in the world. that's what lincoln wanted to do. >> lincoln believed in private property. >> absolutely. >> he believed in the idea that a man and a woman should be able to get the fruits of -- keep the fruits of their labors, like he was the first supplies best i can tell you. >> foundational for him. he quoted a line from genesis earning a living off the sweat of your own brow, this is one of the principal reasons he opposed slavery. what was slavery? he called it the second inaugural unrequieted toil. you were stealing the proceeds of someone else's labor. that was fundamentally wrovenlth it played into his open six for classic warfare in the 19th century as well, a delegation of working men came to visit him in the white house, he said, let not him who is houseless hold down the house of another, but build his own, that's a sentiment if i ever heard one, a kudlow-ian sentiment. >> liberals tries to claim it, barak barak tries to claim him today. where has the president gone wrong? >> they point to the government can also and the roosd alike. one fing if you have a major project at the time. he didn't have a financial market that was going to support emthis. they needed some government assistance, now, you cast that forward today, who doesn't support at some level bridges and roadings? this is uncontroversial. >> he wasn't a redistributist. >> you don't have a state giving it to others, it's not a redistributionist government, there is not a huge bureaucracy, as we were talking earlier, there is not regulation to hamper development. >> they raised money for the civil war, but they went back to the gold standard. >> the income tax. >> they got rid of the income tax finally after the civil war occurred. all right. so i'm going to claim lincoln as a reagan-esque supply sider. that's what i will do. my co-host rich lowry, his new book "lincoln unbound." that's the book right there. tomorrow night, we'll have a great fed debate. what is bernanke doing? john taylor vs. jim pethokoukis. i'm kudlow. .de >> narrator: in this episode of "american greed: the fugitives," you've won the lottery! promises like this, luring thousands of unsuspecting victims. >> they were very nice. "this is a wonderful experience for you. i'm sure you're gonna be very happy. now, what we need to do to process your prize is the following." >> narrator: but instead of paying a jackpot, roland okuomose is accused of ripping people off. >> not one victim has received any lottery or sweepstakes winnings. >> narrator: now this alleged criminal mastermind is on the