3 Reasons For Kamala to Panic

The Times accidentally endorses DJT, to the delight of his fans. October 28, 2024 [WEBSITE]( | [UNSUBSCRIBE]( The New York Times Endorses* Trump! SEAN RING As I was scrolling through my X feed yesterday, I saw this and nearly wet my pants: Credit: [@witte_sergei]( It’s got to be Tweet of the Year. So, let’s run down this list. - Prosecute his enemies? Can’t wait! - Order mass deportations? It should’ve been done ages ago. - Use soldiers against citizens? I imagine it would’ve saved The City Formerly Known as Minneapolis in 2020. - Abandon allies? If this means “dismantle NATO,” that’s okay with me! - Play politics with disasters? That’s more than Biden did for East Palestine and Appalachia. Oh, and despite repeatedly calling The Donald a liar since 2016, you’re supposed to “believe him” now. Never have I seen such hysteria in the legacy media. It’s embarrassing. My parents are huge fans of Gutfeld on Fox News and watch it on YouTube here in Italy. Dave Rubin was recently a guest on the show. I disagree with Rubin as often as I agree with him, but he said something spot-on on the show. To paraphrase Rubin, every time the lamestream media calls Trump a “fascist,” he wonders if he’s a fascist for wanting Trump to do everything he’s being accused of planning. Me, too, Dave. Me, too. Besides the NYT’s inadvertent Trump endorsement, Kamala has at least three reasons to panic. Events are moving out of her control. No Beyonce Concert at Kamala Rally This first one is an own goal. As a lack of attendance at Word Salad City - that’s any Kamala campaign stop - troubles the Democrats, they promise what they either can’t or won’t deliver: free concerts. And this time, when the Democrat’s Lucy pulled the football away from Houston’s Charlie Brown, things got ugly. There was no violence, but all those Democrats who brought children to Kamala’s appearance were pretty darn unhappy. It was all so exciting! Beyonce and her old Destiny’s Child bandmate, Kelly Rowland (the hotter one), were returning to their hometown to endorse and sing for Kamala. But inexplicably, they only showed up for five minutes to speak about how important it is to be able to kill fetuses they aren’t carrying in states they don’t live in. It’s a far cry from Bill Clinton’s Democratic party when Madeline Albright was perfectly happy killing 500,000 Iraqi children. But still. Then they endorsed Kamala and exited stage left. Of course, the lamestream media tried to cover it up, to no avail. Credit: [@TimMurtaugh]( Contrast that with Trump’s crowd in Traverse City, Michigan, who waited three hours for him to show up. But he had a good reason. [URGENT: Regarding Your 2024 Strategic Intelligence Membership Dues!]( Hi, I’m Matt Insley. I’m the Publisher at Paradigm Press. Just moments ago, I just got off the phone with Jim and we agreed: it’s time we start charging more money for access to his newsletter. That’s why we may implement a massive price hike for all subscribers in the coming days. But if you [click here now]( you can lock in your current subscription price at 80% off – and never have to pay the potential new price of $500. Don’t waste any time. [Click Here To Learn More]( Trump on Rogan: A Rousing Success Trump arrived late in Traverse City because he was on Joe Rogan’s podcast… which lasted three hours. Did the crowd care? Nope. He’s got fantastic support. And what’s more, Michigan is well in play for him. His Rogan show went well. It was genial and funny, and I enjoyed their rapport. Rogan was far more engaging with Trump than I thought he’d be. You may recall Rogan was always a bit cagy about Trump and not a supporter, which the Democrats conveniently forget. I’m glad Trump admitted he picked the wrong people for some positions in his first administration, like John Kelly and John Bolton. “I picked some people that I shouldn’t have picked. A guy like Kelly, who is a bully, a bully, but a weak person,” Trump said. Trump called former National Security Advisor and arch-neocon Bolton an “idiot.” Trump also showed off his scar from the assassination attempt in Butler, PA. Trump showed where the bullet “zigged right in.” “It’s not like some of the wrestlers’ [scars], some of the UFC fighters [scars], Trump said. “But you see, the things take off a little bit, but it makes me a tougher guy.” Hilariously, Trump said Kamala wouldn’t be able to survive a Rogan interview, with which Rogan disagreed. DONALD TRUMP: One of the things I like about doing a show like this, can you imagine Kamala doing this show? JOE ROGAN: I could imagine her doing this show. DONALD TRUMP: She’d be laying, she’d be laying on the floor. JOE ROGAN: She was supposed to do it, and then she might still do it, and I hope she does. I will talk to her like a human being. I would try to have a conversation with her. DONALD TRUMP: If she did this kind of an interview with you, I hope she does because it would be a mess. She’d be laying on the floor comatose. You’d be saying, “Call in the medics.” JOE ROGAN: I think we’d have a fine conversation. I think I’d be able to talk to her. I wouldn’t try to interview her. I’d just try to have a conversation with her and hopefully get to know her as a human being. I must admit Joe Rogan was as classy as could be. And The Donald didn’t disappoint, either. The MSG Rally Means New York’s In Play The Democrats have invoked old Adolph so often his name won’t have any meaning anymore. MSNBC wasted minutes of viewers’ lives comparing Trump’s rally in Madison Square Garden to a certain failed painter’s. It’s absurd. Trump packed the place to the rafters while allegedly another 40,000 stood outside cheering. Incredible. But that’s not what’s important. The big picture is New York must be in play for him to have had this rally. Can you imagine him flipping the Empire State? Oh, what fun it would be watching the liberal meltdown! Right now, the momentum is on the Orange Man’s side. Wrap Up It’s been one success after another. The New York Times, for once, is honest, and that worked in Trump’s favor. Kamala keeps tripping over her own feet. Trump’s Rogan interview went very well. And the MSG rally was an astounding sight to behold. With a week to go, The Donald must feel good about his chances. All the best, Sean Ring Editor, Rude Awakening X (formerly Twitter): [@seaniechaos]( Rate this email Like Dislike Thanks for rating this content! Looks like something went wrong. Please try to rate again. In Case You Missed It… Open Borders Dystopia SEAN RING I’ve been an immigrant five times. If you’re new to the Rude, you may not know I’ve lived around the world. But each time I settled in a new country, I needed to seek permission to do so. When I moved to London, aged 24, my bank had to secure a visa for me to work there. Without that, I wouldn’t have been able to leave America. When I was 34, I needed to overcome Singapore’s notorious restrictions to emigrate there. Then, at age 40, my company needed to get me a visa to live in Hong Kong. At 43, I needed a spousal visa to live in the Philippines. Finally, I needed an Italian passport to settle here in Italy. The point is, I didn’t rock up in a dinghy expecting benefits. Those countries needed to know a few things. Would I be taking a job away from a native? Would I reasonably integrate? Would I cause any trouble? Would I contribute to the economy? Economists and business leaders who only tout long-term GDP growth as the reason we absolutely must accept open borders miss all the damage done in the interim. Only countries as fat, complacent, and content as the US, the UK, and the EU take open borders seriously. Countries who have to live in reality think it’s bonkers. And giving away citizenship like it’s free candy? It’s utter nonsense. My son was born in Hong Kong. Does he have a Chinese passport? Nope. You’ve got to be ethnic Chinese to get a Chinese passport, which makes sense to me. The same goes for India. Sure, if you integrate and are happy to be a citizen of a country you weren’t born in, be my guest. I’ve got British and Italian passports. But I drink like a Brit - or at least, I used to - and eat like an Italian, among other things. The problem isn’t migration, per se. It’s the swarms of strangers overwhelming border forces that are a problem. And the huddled masses yearning to breathe free? There are masses… and 11 million people are crossing a border—a big difference. I read two things today that spurred me to think about this: Ryan McMaken’s excellent article for mises.org and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s tweet for help. First, The Tweet The loathsome Prime Minister of Canada, Justin Trudeau, who the Canadians can’t bother to throw out, posted this on X yesterday. I’m delighted Canada is so broke it needs to curb immigration. Apparently, the country is unrecognizable. Hold this thought until later. McMaken’s Piece Ryan McMaken penned a gem of a piece for mises.org called “[Haiti: Why Open Borders Don’t Work in the Developing World]( He writes: Contrary to the naïve thought experiments of open-borders economists like Bryan Caplan, large and fast demographic changes brought about by unrestrained migration impose many costs on natives. These costs diminish or cancel out what gains that might be realized from the import of cheap labor. Rather, large flows of migrants produce domestic conflict, geopolitical tensions, and calls for more active government intervention. All of this diminishes the quality of life and standard of living of the native population. Open-border advocates, however, would have us believe that open borders bring nothing but net benefits. These claims are “supported” with economic models showing that migrants eventually bring about increases in GDP. In real life, however, the situation is far more complicated. Migrants are not mere “economic inputs” like manufactured goods, but are persons that impact local realities like tax burdens and government amenities. Moreover, migrants tend to demand procedural political rights such as citizenship and voting. Often, these migrations are easily managed when they take place gradually, and thus, their economic benefits are more unambiguous. Unrestrained, large-scale migrations, on the other hand, are quite different. However, even large, rich countries, like the US, have trouble absorbing a large influx of immigrants. Europe and the UK are case studies of disastrous migration policies, and Canada has joined that sad club. [[Urgent] Starlink Set For The Largest IPO In History?]( He turned PayPal from a tiny, off-the-radar startup… to a massive $64 billion giant. Then, he did it again with Tesla… which is up more than 19,500% since 2010. For perspective, that turns $100 invested into almost $20,000! And now, Elon could be set to do it for the third and final time… with what might be his biggest breakthrough yet. And for the first time ever, you have the rare chance to profit BEFORE the upcoming IPO. [Click here now for the urgent details on this hidden play.]( The Problems with Mass Immigration Economic Pressures on Low-Skilled Workers The economic arguments for open borders usually hinge on GDP growth and overall economic “gains.” However, advocates ignore how this growth is distributed. When there is an influx of workers willing to accept lower wages, low-skilled native workers are forced to accept reduced wages and increased job competition. In short, ditch diggers need their land to dig the ditches. When someone else encroaches, they have nowhere to go. The U.S. has seen wage stagnation in lower-skilled jobs as employers exploit labor surpluses created by high immigration. A similar situation occurred in the UK following the expansion of the European Union in 2004, when lower-wage sectors experienced suppressed wages due to a surge in labor from Eastern European countries. I was there. I saw it. While companies benefited from reduced labor costs, the local working class bore the economic brunt. Hence, Brexit. Social and Cultural Challenges Open-border advocates often romanticize integration, yet integration is not guaranteed. When communities experience sudden demographic shifts, social friction ensues. Native populations accustomed to a particular way of life, shared values, and local customs are threatened by an influx of people with different cultural backgrounds, religions, and customs. This isn’t a matter of intolerance but a practical reality—large-scale immigration introduces complexities in fostering unity. In short, it lowers trust. Moreover, cultural integration requires time, willingness, and often limited resources. When immigrants arrive in significant numbers, the pressure to integrate them can stretch already limited social resources, creating enclaves rather than integrated communities. In countries like France, for example, the rapid rise in immigration has led to the banlieue. In these suburban areas, immigrant communities live in isolation from mainstream society, creating friction and a sense of disenfranchisement among both groups. Fiscal and Welfare Strain Every citizen pays into and benefits from their nation's welfare system. In many Western countries, welfare systems are already stretched thin; large-scale immigration exacerbates this. Immigrants often rely on welfare services to settle in new countries, which puts pressure directly on natives' tax contributions. In Germany, following the 2015 Merkel migrant crisis, significant resources were diverted to accommodate the influx of refugees, resulting in increased taxation and government borrowing. While humanitarian aid is laudable, the financial burden posed by open-border policies is not sustainable in the long term, particularly for middle—and low-income native citizens who feel the impact of resource reallocation in real-time. The Solution Trudeau, oddly enough, finally did the right thing. And there’s precedence for it. The Immigration Act of 1924, known as the Johnson-Reed Act, imposed a significant immigration moratorium. This act set stringent quotas, ending the era of mass immigration. The act introduced national origin quotas, limiting immigration to 2% of each nationality based on the U.S. census of 1890. This act imposed a moratorium on immigration for many groups, especially those from non-Western European countries, as it sharply limited the overall number of immigrants allowed each year. This restriction continued until the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 abolished the quota system and reopened immigration to a broader, more diverse set of countries. Wrap Up Those advocating open borders would do well to consider the legitimate concerns of native populations, particularly those who already face economic and social challenges. Responsible immigration policy respects borders. Open borders may be a nice idea in a world of finite resources and distinct cultures, but their costs are borne disproportionately by the people it claims to uplift. Have a wonderful weekend! All the best, Sean Ring Editor, Rude Awakening Twitter: [@seaniechaos]( ☰ ⊗ [UPDATE PREFERENCES]( [Contact Us]( © 2024 Paradigm Press, LLC. 1001 Cathedral Street, Baltimore, MD 21201. By submitting your email address, you consent to Paradigm Press, LLC. delivering daily email issues and advertisements. To end your Rude Awakening e-mail subscription and associated external offers sent from Rude Awakening, feel free to [click here,]( or manage your newsletter preferences [here.]( Please note: the mailbox associated with this email address is not monitored, so do not reply to this message. We welcome comments or suggestions at feedback@rudeawakening.info. This address is for feedback only. For questions about your account or to speak with customer service, [contact us here]( or call (844)-731-0984. Although our employees may answer your general customer service questions, they are not licensed under securities laws to address your particular investment situation. No communication by our employees to you should be deemed as personalized financial advice. We allow the editors of our publications to recommend securities that they own themselves. However, our policy prohibits editors from exiting a personal trade while the recommendation to subscribers is open. In no circumstance may an editor sell a security before subscribers have a fair opportunity to exit. The length of time an editor must wait after subscribers have been advised to exit a play depends on the type of publication. All other employees and agents must wait 24 hours after on-line publication or 72 hours after the mailing of a printed-only publication prior to following an initial recommendation. Any investments recommended in this letter should be made only after consulting with your investment advisor and only after reviewing the prospectus or financial statements of the company. Rude Awakening is committed to protecting and respecting your privacy. We do not rent or share your email address. Please read our [Privacy Statement.]( If you are having trouble receiving your Rude Awakening subscription, you can ensure its arrival in your mailbox by [whitelisting Rude Awakening.](