RUSH: Ladies and gentlemen, President Obama announced that he's doing another executive order. He is gonna cap student loans at 10% of a person's income. People are saying, "Whoa, whoa, whoa! What does that mean? How does that work?" How does that work? Well, it's real simple. The president just decides that he's gonna throw out thousands of years of contract law, and he's gonna rewrite the law himself with an executive order.
He makes the law.
It doesn't matter what contract the student and a bank have made. Obama knows best, and he needs to buy more votes, and this is a way to do that using the bank's money. They run the student loan program, anyway. Look, this is a prelude... Mark my words today. June the 9th, 2014: This is a prelude to forgiving some student loans to start with. Don't you remember the Regime took over the student loan program from the banks, from the private sector way back in the second term?
You do remember that, right? Okay, so now he's basically just saying that student loans are gonna be capped at 10% of a person's income. You ask, "How does that work?" You're not supposed to ask how it works. It's just what is. A student, the maximum loan they can pay is 10% of their income. Now, if they're unemployed I don't know what you do. If they don't have an income, 10% of nothing is what? Nothing! Exactly.
RUSH: (interruption) What? iOS 8? You want me to tell people what I think about iOS 8 today? There would be a revolt in this audience if I were to tell people what I think of iOS 8 today. (interruption) Yeah, well, Snerdley, I can't believe you. With all that's going on, people don't want to know about iOS 8 today. Well, maybe some do. I'll do it tomorrow. I promise. (interruption) I don't know anything about the iWatch. I don't even know that there's going to be an iWatch. See, once again you are totally believing speculation. Has Apple said there's going to be an iWatch? (interruption) All right.
Has Apple said there's gonna be an iOS 8? Yes. Have they said there's gonna be an OS X Yosemite? Yes. Have they said there's gonna be a bigger iPhone 6? No. (interruption) But, well, yeah, there will be one. They actually have said so in that trial with Samsung, but it was cast another way. I don't know anything about an iWatch, other than if it's related to health, I'm not interested.
RUSH: The Washington Post had a story while I was away. Headline: "Female-Named Hurricanes Kill More Than Male Hurricanes." Did you see that while I was gone? (interruption) You heard, okay. Let's take that headline and let's ask ourselves why in the world might this be. Why would they assert that this is true, that hurricanes named after women killed more people than hurricanes named after men? (interruption)
Well, here's the answer, and it's shrouded, rooted in feminazi-ism. "People don't take hurricanes as seriously if they have a feminine name and the consequences are deadly, finds a new groundbreaking study. Female-named storms have historically killed more because people neither consider them as risky nor take the same precautions."
If Hurricane Helen is hitting you, you say, "Helen wouldn't hurt me. Helen? Are you kidding?" But Hurricane Richard, you better look out because Richard will come and savage you, will destroy you, will do horrible things to you. Helen would never think of hurting you. This is what they want us to believe.
"Researchers at the University of Illinois and Arizona State University examined six decades of hurricane death rates according to gender, spanning 1950 and 2012. Of the 47 most damaging hurricanes, the female-named hurricanes produced an average of 45 deaths compared to 23 deaths in male-named storms, or almost double the number of fatalities. ...
"The difference in death rates between genders was even more pronounced when comparing strongly masculine names versus strongly feminine ones. '[Our] model suggests that changing a severe hurricane's name from Charley ... to Eloise ... could nearly triple its death toll,' the study says. Sharon Shavitt, study co-author and professor of marketing at the University of Illinois, says the results imply an 'implicit sexism.'"
I wonder if they factored in the time of the month that the female hurricanes hit. You know, if a female hurricane is in its cycle, could make it even worse. Well, are they factoring that? (interruption) Look, you may be laughing in there. That makes as much sense as any of the rest of this. Hurricane Charley is more threatening than Hurricane Eloise and so people prepare themselves more for it?
Hurricane Katrina? (interruption) Assuming it's true, what are we supposed to do? We're supposed to eliminate female names. That's not the way to look at this, though. The way to look at it is exactly as the headline says. Female named hurricanes are deadlier, period. Who cares why! Female-named hurricanes are deadlier. That's all we need to know. And I give you Katrina, period.