Unreal. So here was the headline from Mediaite last week. Mediaite the leftward tilting cover-the-media site. Trump Tells Rally Crowd ‘You Have Smart Ones’ And Black Congressman Byron Donalds Is One of Them. The Mediaite story about the Trump appearance at a rally in Johnstown, Pennsylvania last Friday begins: Former President Donald Trump said of prominent Black supporter Rep. Byron Donalds (R-FL) “That one is smart!” — adding “You have smart ones” and without specifying what the “ones” were. With all due respect, the implication here that Trump was injecting race here is nonsense. Why do I say this? Because I was there. An invited “Special Guest” seated in the “Special Guest” section which put me one row behind Congressman Donalds and two seats away from him. [I]t was crystal clear who Trump was talking about: that would be Republican Members of Congress. Notably, there were other Members of Congress there in the same section. Specifically they were Pennsylvania Congressmen Dan Meuser, Guy Reschenthaler, Mike Kelly, Lloyd Smucker, and John Joyce. Only Donalds was not from Pennsylvania. Trump called out all of them, and they all stood to be recognized. Hence, when Trump looked over and saw Floridian Donalds sitting in the section with his Pennsylvania colleagues and other Pennsylvanians like myself, he, as he often does, called out the visiting Florida Congressman for recognition. Thus Trump’s remark: Byron set (stand) up please. Superstar of the future! He’s already a superstar, but he’s a superstar of the future! Byron Donalds, Florida. Wow, that’s nice to have you here! That’s good. He’s great. He’s good. He knows exactly what I’m talking about. That one is smart! You have smart ones and you have some that aren’t quite so good. In other words, it was crystal clear who Trump was talking about: that would be Republican Members of Congress. Thus, for Mediate to suggest that when Trump said,  “You have smart ones without specifying what the ‘ones’ were” this is flatly untrue.  As someone sitting right there it was abundantly clear who Trump was referring to when he said, “You have smart ones and you have some that aren’t quite so good.” Trump was talking about Republican Members of Congress — the ones right in front of him from Pennsylvania — and by implication the larger pool of House Republicans in general. It is no secret that Trump, in his term, was less than happy with various GOP House Members, perhaps most notably the then-GOP Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, with whom he frequently clashed. At no time was Trump’s recognition of Donalds tied to race. There was nothing racial about it. Indeed, to the contrary, Donalds was recognized exactly on an equal, color-blind footing with all his Pennsylvania — and white — colleagues. So why does Mediaite inject race into something that had zero to do with race? Zero? Who knows. But sadly, it can be said with 100 percent historical fact that the American left, as discussed from time to time in this space, has a long — very long — history of using race to win elections. A small list of the party’s predilection on using race in elections can be found here. Yet in spite of the recognition of the Left’s “predilection on using race in elections,” that predilection still comes out, whether from left-leaning politicians or media organizations. As this attempt by Mediate to impute racism to Trump in the Johnstown rally illustrates. For all the criticism here, I must say I do in fact read Mediaite (and lots of others on all sides of issues of the day). Thus my criticism here is that this imputation of racism to Trump for citing the presence of Congressman Donalds is simply not worthy of the site. An apology coming to Trump from Mediaite? Don’t wait up. On we go. Happy remainder of the election season. READ MORE from Jeffrey Lord: The Trump Revolution On the Biden Coup, the Post and the Times Disagree The post <i>Mediaite</i> Plays the Race Card Over Trump Rally appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Now that Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. is in President Donald J. Trump’s corner, the Republican standard bearer should work the Kennedys into his campaign pitch. He should remind voters that RFK, Jr. and former congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii are among the Democrats who have endorsed his candidacy. Trump also should promote his current and future tax cuts by invoking the Kennedys’ support for tax relief. Trump would not tax tips — an idea so good that Kamala shoplifted it. “As President, Robert F. Kennedy Jr will propose a revenue-neutral plan that helps both the lower and middle classes, subsidized not by raising rates on high income households, but rather by closing loopholes and eliminating deductions that only benefit the wealthy,” his still-active website states. (READ MORE from Deroy Murdoch: Donald J. Trump: Kommandant-in-Chief?) While this is hardly a full-throated supply-side battle cry, it also is far from the usual Democrat demand for higher taxes to soak the rich. RFK, Jr. has offered seldom heard, encouraging words on tax reduction, according to the Committee to Unleash Prosperity. He told CUP’s dinner guests earlier this year, “I learned from my uncle that cutting taxes increases prosperity.” And what a lesson President John F. Kennedy taught his nephew and the nation! “Our tax rates, in short, are so high as to weaken the very essence of the progress of a free society, the incentive for additional, return for additional effort,” JFK said from the White House on August 13, 1962. In a televised address, he called for “a permanent basic reform and reduction in our rate structure, a creative tax cut creating more jobs and income and eventually more revenue.” JFK added: It will include an across the board, top to bottom cut in both corporate and personal income taxes … The billions of dollars this bill will place in the hands of the consumer and our businessmen will have both immediate and permanent benefits to our economy. Every dollar released from taxation that is spent or invested will help create a new job and a new salary. And these new jobs and new salaries can create other jobs and other salaries and more customers and more growth for an expanding American economy. JFK even foreshadowed the Laffer Curve, 12 years before then-University of Chicago Economics Professor Arthur Laffer first illustrated on a cocktail napkin how lower marginal tax rates can yield higher tax revenues by taking a smaller slice of a bigger economic pie. As JFK predicted, “By removing tax roadblocks to new jobs and new growth, the enactment of this measure next year will eventually more than make up in new revenue all that it will initially cost.” JFK offered similar words that winter. “It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high, and tax revenues are too low,” he told the Economic Club of New York on December 16, 1962:  “The soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now.” Alas, JFK never signed his tax cut into law. He was assassinated on November 22, 1963. Barely three months later, however, President Lyndon Baines Johnson approved the Revenue Act of 1964, that February 26. JFK/LBJ dropped the top income tax rate from a shocking 91 percent to a merely outrageous 70 percent. The bottom rate slid from 20 percent to 14 percent, and the corporate tax fell from 52 percent to 48 percent. Even these relatively modest tax reductions fueled good times that lasted until President Richard Milhous Nixon exited the gold standard, ignited inflation, and endured the 1973-74 Arab Oil Embargo. While RFK, Jr. learned from these events, Kamala Harris must have flunked U.S. History. She ignores JFK’s wise example. Also, while she plagiarized Trump’s proposal for no tax on tips, she cannot wait to torpedo his bounty-fueling Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA). (READ MORE: Judge Merchan Is a Hoodlum in Black Robes) “On Day One, we’re going to repeal that tax bill,” Kamala said, verbatim, at least four times in 2019: July 11, July 14, November 1, and November 22 (ironically, the 56th anniversary of JFK’s death). Kamala couldn’t care less that TCJA did the most for those with the least. “Income data published by the IRS clearly show that on average all income brackets benefited substantially from the Republicans’ tax reform law, with the biggest beneficiaries being working and middle-income filers, not the top 1 percent, as so many Democrats have argued,” Heartland Institute scholar Justin Haskins wrote December 4, 2021 for The Hill. Haskins further explained that “filers with an adjusted gross income (AGI) of $15,000 to $50,000 enjoyed an average tax cut of 16 percent to 26 percent in 2018, the first year Republicans’ Tax Cuts and Jobs Act went into effect and the most recent year for which data is available.” “Filers who earned $50,000 to $100,000 received a tax break of about 15 percent to 17 percent, and those earning $100,000 to $500,000 in adjusted gross income saw their personal income taxes cut by around 11 percent to 13 percent,” Haskins continued. “By comparison, no income group with an AGI of at least $500,000 received an average tax cut exceeding 9 percent, and the average tax cut for brackets starting at $1 million was less than 6 percent,” Haskins elaborated. “That means most middle-income and working-class earners enjoyed a tax cut that was at least double the size of tax cuts received by households earning $1 million or more.” None of this phases Kamala, who yearns to hike an array of taxes: She would let Trump’s entire TCJA expire, thus raising taxes on nearly every taxpayer.   Top income-tax rate: From today’s 37 percent to a proposed 39.6 percent — Up 7 percent.   Corporate tax: 21 percent to 28 percent — Up 33.3 percent.   Capital gains: 20 percent to 44.6 percent — Up 123 percent.   Stock buyback tax: 1 percent to 4 percent — Up 300 percent.   Unrealized capital gains: 0 percent to 25 percent — Up ∞ percent via a mathematically unlimited increase in a now non-existent tax. Kamala dreams of taxing stocks and other assets while they are held and before they are sold. Absent other ready cash, millions of Americans would have to liquidate holdings merely to pay this neo-Marxist tax. This would be the first cannon blast in Kamala’s War on Investment. As only he can do, U.S. Senator John Kennedy (R – Louisiana) — no relation to the Hyannis Port Kennedys — hilariously dismantled Kamalanomics Friday on Fox News Channel’s Hannity program. Kennedy, who served with then-Senator Kamala Harris (D – California), said: “I have described Ms. Harris as AOC without the bartending experience. I think that’s accurate. That’s how she’ll govern.” Senator Kennedy ridiculed Kamala’s flip flops on a fracking ban, prohibition of private insurance, and her reincarnation as Margaret Thatcher in a pantsuit (my description). He called her “A wolf promising to be a vegan, if the sheep would just vote for it.” Senator Kennedy lampooned Kamala’s proposed tax hikes and price controls on groceries. “Miss Harris helped create the worst inflation in 40 years … Her plan to try to lower prices looks like it was put together with vodka and darts.” “Defining Bidenomics is easy,” Senator Kennedy concluded. “It’s paying more to live worse.” Less knee-slapping, but far more inspiring, is Trump’s contrasting vision for America. Rather than rising taxes, burgeoning outlays, creeping subsidies, and galloping socialism, the Republican nominee offers hope and change. For starters Trump would not repeal TCJA. He would make it permanent. Trump would not tax tips — an idea so good that Kamala shoplifted it. Trump also would end taxes on Social Security benefits. The elderly should face zero taxes on retirement income that they earned, typically through four decades of FICA Tax payments. “We will end the era of inflation, mayhem, and misery under Kamala and Crooked Joe and unleash safety, prosperity, and peace for Americans of every race, religion, color, and creed,” Trump told voters in Glendale, Arizona, on August 23, hours after RFK, Jr. endorsed him. Trump added: “Together, we will deliver low taxes, low regulations, low energy costs, low interest costs, low inflation — and that’s for everyone. We’re talking about everyone. We want to make sure everyone can afford groceries, a car, and a home.” Deroy Murdock is a Manhattan-based Fox News Contributor. The post Trump and the Kennedys for Tax Cuts, Kamala Not appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

California and New York continue to lose residents at a rapid clip. I’m a conservative millennial who abhors the current political trajectory of those states, but here’s my predicament: I was raised in one and recently moved to the other. I love them both. Beyond politics, or beneath it, is the beauty of American soil and spirit. I started out in New York – not the fast-paced, hot-dog selling Big Apple. We’re talking Western New York: wood burning, church going, buy-your-food-from-Amish country. It’s a rugged breed of people. Icy walks to the car each morning for twelve weeks of the year will thicken anyone’s skin. (READ MORE: The Blue State Rescue Plan) And yet, the fabric I’m cut from is soft. My childhood brimmed with the hard-working and kind: dairy farmers carrying on their parents’ trade, auto mechanics who somehow manage to make a living on affordable and honest service. The landscape mirrored this resilience: a hillside of historical homes standing boldly a mere feet from each other, sycamores and maples providing shade for passing walkers. The political tapestry of Upstate New York is a weave, but my childhood backdrop had a distinct conservative thread, largely due to the circles in which my family operated. Thus, my New York is a dichotomy: liberal in the sweeping but not in the specific. So many New Yorkers are laid-back people who just want to blow glass or grow tomatoes in peace. The Albany agenda weighs little upon small town life. Sure, we all put up with high regulation and property taxes — our rotting porches evidence of the opportunity cost. “That’s just New York,” people quip, often followed by, “One of these days I’m gonna get out of here.” Many do. And yet, many stay. It’s a reminder that land and culture jointly produce a sense of place, a belonging that often influences people more than politics does. That’s refreshing to me, especially since I just moved to the political cesspool of California. When we arrived, I expected to find a state peppered by crime, corruption, homelessness, and drugs. Instead, I found familiarity: rugged farmers, budding fruit trees, and chilly morning breezes. Sure, the other stuff is around, but it isn’t immediately shaping my daily life any more than the Trump flags I’m surprised to see along the highway. Beyond politics, or beneath it, is the beauty of American soil and spirit. So I’m learning to love California through its land: in my case, a small family homestead near Sacramento, the hard-earned purchase of my husband’s grandparents. Who wouldn’t fall in love with an orchard of almond trees surrounded by vibrant alfalfa fields and visiting egrets? For love of this place, and others like it across our nation, worn farmers under the heavy hand of regulation press on with American fortitude. On both coasts and across a political spectrum of states, businesspeople purchase property and cultivate profit from it, putting up with code inspector visits and permit applications every tedious step of the way. We draw stability and sustenance from our nation’s dirt. Hasn’t devotion to place been America’s story from the start? Even during the Revolutionary War, George Washington made plans for his home estate and dreamed of the day he could return to care for it. After the war, many of the generals turned their sights to land acquisition in the West, and those who stayed home tended gardens. My new highway in California takes me regularly past a historical “Pony Express Route” sign. I think of the men who rode these pathways on horseback, bringing news of loved ones to people who ventured far from their communities to form new ones. This California — dry and dusty, fresh and fruitful — became their home. It’s mine now too. I think about my birth state and the immigrants who entered America through it. New York gave them roots, first as a salty harbor with a statue of solidarity, and next as an island of grueling work and vast opportunity. The place formed them, just as it formed me. (READ MORE: Those Who Move to a Different State) True, political decisions play an enormous role in shaping our places. For this reason and others, we should devote ourselves to thoughtful political discourse and action. I, for one, hope the liberal states I love will reset their course toward constitutional ideas instead of outpacing each other toward leftist dystopias. In the meantime, I’m thankful Americans don’t need to agree with the law of the land in order to love the land itself. We are a divided people, and a unified foundation has many stones. Perhaps a shared love of American places isn’t a terrible one to lay first. The post I Love the States People Are Leaving appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Conservatism and Skepticism In an era marked by political polarization and ideological entrenchment, the wisdom of Benjamin Franklin’s words resonates more profoundly than ever: “It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority.” As we navigate the complexities of modern governance, it’s essential to embrace this ethos, not as a partisan mantra, but as a fundamental tenet of democratic citizenship. From a conservative perspective, the imperative to question authority stems from a deep-seated distrust of unchecked power and a reverence for individual liberty. When we surrender to the whims of authority without scrutiny, we risk sacrificing the very freedoms that define our nation’s essence. (READ MORE: Tyranny Has Returned to the US, This Time by Proxy) The Founding Fathers, wary of tyranny, crafted a system of checks and balances to prevent the concentration of power. Yet, this framework only functions optimally when citizens remain vigilant, questioning the actions of those entrusted with authority. Finally, we must recognize that skepticism is not a partisan trait, but a civic duty. The benefits of skepticism are twofold. Firstly, it prevents the creep of authoritarianism, ensuring that power remains accountable to the people. By questioning authority, citizens create a culture of transparency, where leaders are compelled to justify their actions and decisions. This fosters a more responsive government, attuned to the needs and concerns of its constituents. Secondly, skepticism fuels innovation and progress. When we challenge prevailing wisdom and conventional thinking, we create space for new ideas and perspectives to emerge. This intellectual curiosity has long been a hallmark of American exceptionalism, driving breakthroughs in science, technology, and entrepreneurship. However, in today’s political climate, skepticism is often misconstrued as obstructionism or disloyalty. We’re frequently encouraged to prioritize unity over scrutiny, to “get behind” our leaders without question. This is a false dichotomy. Loyalty to one’s country doesn’t require blind allegiance to authority; rather, it demands a commitment to the principles that undergird our democracy. Conservatives, in particular, should be wary of surrendering to the allure of unchecked power. Our philosophy emphasizes the importance of limited government, individual responsibility, and the protection of minority rights. When we fail to question authority, we risk undermining these core tenets, allowing the state to expand its reach and control. The consequences of unchecked power are stark. History is replete with examples of authoritarian regimes that have stifled dissent, suppressed creativity, and enslaved their citizens. In more recent times, we’ve witnessed the corrosive effects of groupthink and the dangers of unquestioning loyalty, from the intelligence failures leading up to the Iraq War to the catastrophic mismanagement of the COVID-19 pandemic. In contrast, a culture of skepticism has yielded some of the most significant advancements in American history. The Civil Rights Movement, for instance, was born from the courageous willingness to challenge authority, to question the morality of segregation and discrimination. The Founding Fathers themselves were skeptics, questioning the authority of the British Crown and forging a new nation founded on the principles of liberty and self-governance. Developing a Culture of Skepticism So, how can we cultivate this spirit of skepticism in our daily lives? Firstly, we must prioritize critical thinking, seeking out diverse perspectives and evaluating evidence objectively. We should engage in constructive dialogue with those who hold differing views, not to “win” arguments, but to refine our understanding of complex issues. Secondly, we must support institutions and individuals that embody the values of skepticism and transparency. A free press, for example, serves as a vital check on power, holding leaders accountable for their actions. We should also champion whistleblowers and dissidents, who risk everything to expose corruption and challenge entrenched interests. Finally, we must recognize that skepticism is not a partisan trait, but a civic duty. We should applaud those who question authority, regardless of their political affiliation, and create space for constructive dissent in our public discourse. (READ MORE: Anarcho-Tyranny Is Official White House Policy) In conclusion, the responsibility to question authority is not a mere suggestion, but a sacred duty of citizenship. As conservatives, we have a unique obligation to uphold this principle, recognizing that skepticism is the ultimate bulwark against tyranny and the greatest catalyst for progress. By embracing this ethos, we can forge a more just, more innovative, and more resilient society, where individual liberty and freedom flourish. As Franklin so astutely observed, questioning authority is not only a right, but a fundamental responsibility — one that we must exercise with courage, conviction, and unwavering commitment. The post The Sacred Duty of Skepticism appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D – Darth Vader) proclaimed at the Democratic Party Convention that if his party retakes the House and keeps the Senate, while winning the White House, his priority will be to end the use of the filibuster codified in Senate Rule 22. The rule was created in 1917 to enable senators to end debates by a 2/3 “cloture” vote — 67 votes, even if fewer than 100 senators vote; it was amended in 1977, by reducing the cloture threshold to 60 votes. The Court tossed Biden executive orders mandating employer vaccines, the eviction moratorium, and student loan forgiveness. In 2013, then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid exercised the infamous “nuclear option” by amending Senate Rule 22 so that nominations to the federal district and appeals courts could not be filibustered; the Supreme Court was exempted, as no vacancies had occurred. Democrats got a taste of their own medicine when, in 2017, Republicans amended Rule 22 to end the filibuster for the High Court, enabling Trump to appoint three justices. The rule ended the Senate’s tradition of unlimited parliamentary debate that had prevailed since the First Congress. While unlimited debate prevented majorities from exercising tyranny of the majority, it permitted tyranny of the minority. A single senator could stop legislation, a practice oft indulged with year-end must-pass budget votes. Rule 22 requires large majorities to prevail, while preventing narrow majorities from enacting major changes. Significantly, if the Senate is evenly divided, the vice-president casts the tie-breaking vote. This applies not simply to legislation, which entails both Houses passing a bill, a check on narrow Senate majorities; the vice-president can also cast tie-breaking votes on amendments to Senate rules. Vice-presidents have cast 301 tie-breaking votes since the 1789 beginning of the First Congress. A breakdown of such votes shows that Kamala Harris is the all-time leader, at 33 tie-breakers, two more than John C. Calhoun’s 31 (1825-1832), in less than half the timespan. John Adams (1789-1797) is a close third, with 29. All others are below 20, with 12 — including Joe Biden (2009-2017) — casting zero tie-breakers. Enter Senator Schumer. Though at the Convention he cited two voting rights bills as his motive, Democrats are focused on targeting the 1869 statute fixing the number of Supreme Court Justices at nine. In 2023, 16 Democrats (six senators and 10 representatives) introduced the Judiciary Act of 2023, first proposed in 2021. The bill would add four justices, citing the increase from nine circuit courts of appeal in 1869 to thirteen today. (Opponents of court-packing have introduced the bipartisan “Keep Nine” Amendment, to enshrine the current statutory number in the Constitution.) The record compiled by the Supremes during Biden’s term shows a number of major reversals of clearly unconstitutional administration policies: The Court tossed Biden executive orders mandating employer vaccines, the eviction moratorium, and student loan forgiveness. During the 2023-24 term the Court overturned its 40-year old “Chevron deference” ruling that gave near total deference to administrative agency rulings. This effectively allowed Congress to pass sweeping legislation, leaving statutory interpretation largely to administrative agencies that under Chevron exercised near-plenary power over interpretation by evading judicial review. Conversely, the Court upheld a number of Biden administrative agency rulings, most notably in Moody v. NetChoice LLC, where it held that parties lacked standing to challenge collusion between the government and social media powerhouses that resulted in censorship of sites publishing views opposing administration policies. While ostensibly the increase in circuits seems non-partisan, none other than Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who served on the Supreme Court for 27 years (1993-2020) and was the “Notorious R.B.G.” darling of those on the Left, opposed increasing the number, saying in 2019 that “Nine seems to be a good number, and it has been that way for a long time.” She added: If anything would make the court appear partisan it would be that. One side saying when we’re in power we’re going to enlarge the number of judges so we’ll have more people who will vote the way we want them to. So I am not at all in favor of that solution to what I see as a temporary situation.  Former Justice Stephen Breyer, also a liberal during his tenure (1994-2022): What I’m trying to do is to make those whose instincts may favor important structural change or other similar institutional changes such as forms of court-packing to think long and hard before they embody those changes in law. Structural alteration motivated by the perception of political influence can only feed that latter perception, further eroding that trust. I traced the history of FDR’s court-packing effort in a 2021 article; and then in a second article I addressed the heavy-handed pressure to get Justice Breyer to step down. FDR entered 1937 having been re-elected in a 46-state landslide, his party having obtained a 333-89 House and a 76-18 Senate. FDR’s initial effort aimed to replace three conservative justices, one liberal and two “swing” justices, on the grounds that justices 70 or older could not carry the workload. After that fizzled, he floated a second plan, raising the retirement age to 75, with a limit of one justice replacement per year. It also flopped. But in the end, FDR wound up with the last laugh: During his terms he appointed eight justices. FDR’s efforts first paid off when Associate Justice Owen Roberts, one of the two “swing” justices, switched sides in two major cases decided 5-4. The shift by Roberts gave rise to the famous quip on the Court’s volte-face: “the switch in time that saved nine.” A generation before that quip, there was Finley Peter Dunne’s Mr. Dooley (rendered in modern English): “No matter whether the Constitution follows the flag or not, the Supreme Court follows the election returns.” The effort to push Breyer into premature retirement worked, leading to the appointment of Kentanji Brown-Jackson, who has a judicial philosophy well to the Left of Breyer, a moderate classical liberal and a skilled consensus-builder on the bench. The Filibuster and the Court: Bottom Line It is too early to assess the chances of Schumer & Co. prevailing. First, they must sweep in November. Second, they must muster 50 Democrat votes to add Supreme Court nominations to the “nuclear option” list. Third, they must be prepared to risk igniting a civil war beyond anything to date if they do pack the Court. Red states might, for example, declare themselves Sanctuary States, as California Gov. Gavin Newsom did over illegal immigration. A republic as deeply divided as ours is now could conceivably be sundered permanently by court-packing. John C. Wohlstetter is the author of Presidential Succession: Constitution, Congress and National Security (Gold Institute Press, 2024) The post Will 2024 Bring Doom for the Filibuster and the Court? appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

from BANNED.VIDEO:  TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/

by Martin Armstrong, Armstrong Economics: In Germany, the policies of open borders have caused extreme violence to give life to the Alternative for Germany (AFD) far-right party. They won a state election for the first time in post-World War II Germany in the country’s east on Sunday. They appear poised to finish a very close […]

from SGT Report: My wife and I met Thaddeus and Heidi at a popular restaurant and bar in our hometown and we quickly realized that have more in common with them than we do with many of our blood relatives. I’m sure many of you can relate! So I invited the minds behind the Primalhacker […]

In 1969 the Stooges shaped the future of rock'n'roll and brilliantly captured a young, fiery generation in turmoil. Punk? Grunge? Glam? So much of it started here