To shoot or not to shoot?

…not precisely Shakespeare I know, but let us try to ask this question.

Why doesn’t the USA hold a
National Referendum
on the 2nd amendment?

The gun debate continues to rage, with both sides of the argument using a variety of views to justify their stance on gun ownership. It also needs to be clear that both sides make compelling arguments that demand serious consideration. Perhaps the public should answer the question of whether it is a right to own a firearm or not.

Political figures are either pro-gun or anti-gun, but while everyone screams different arguments, nobody is taking the simple question and putting it on display.

And why would they?

It would put a debate to an end.
It would remove a reason for support.
It would remove one of their tools of gaining support.

Think about your position of the debate and see whom you supported because of that, and then look at the same politician’s public policies and tell me if you still agree. Some people will find that their stance on whom they support, rested on an argument of whether it is a right to own a firearm but found the public policies to be shocking.

And oh boy, is it media on board with this debate. Shocking news stories that inspire fear or anger is an excellent way to attract attention

So why not let the public decide? Put forward a vote…

Should people have the right to own a gun?

Let us say we removed guns?

….the pro-gun side ask: “Well what about the guns acquired or owned illegally?”

Everybody agrees that illegally owned weapons should be considered a serious crime.  The problem is that it is not considered one.

Don’t believe me?

In the US, it is a precise statistic that the vast majority of mass shootings take place with the use of a handgun.

Nevertheless, the average maximum penalty of the US for owning an unlicensed weapon is only 3.5 years, except for New York, where their laws state : 

Possess loaded firearm without permit, outside of person’s home or place of business: class C felony, classified as violent felony offense, punishable by up to 15 years imprisonment, with a mandatory minimum of 3.5 years

So obviously, for some violent individuals, it is not that frightening to risk three and a half years in prison. 

Owning an unlicensed weapon should be a severe crime that should carry a very hefty punishment. Some might argue that this can be applied, but others might feel that it is not good enough. Either way, it would undoubtedly be a better stance at adding deterrents of obtaining illegal firearms. The risk of a mandatory long term sentence would undoubtedly make many individuals think twice about even acquiring the gun illegally, let alone attempting a violent action.

So then we keep the guns, right?

…hold on, should all guns be ok?


This machine gun is perfectly legal to own in the US, as long it is a semi-automatic. However, is it reasonably acceptable to own a weapon that can support such a high quantity of rounds and would permit an offender to spend such a long time in between having to re-load and thereby be a threat for much longer before being vulnerable to being subdued? (Image Source)


Well, the gun is useless without bullets. So why not place a cap on how many bullets certain guns owners can own.

This being defined by how much one gun can hold with being fully loaded.


You don’t need more than one magazine to protect yourself. Having enough to fire some warning shots and some for the possibility of an actual need for self-defence arising should be enough.


So do you agree that that the public should decide, once and for all?

Should people still have the right to own a gun?

Let us know what you think in the comments below.


Trump set for an unwelcoming state visit in the UK.

Trump meets the Queen at Windsor Castle in Britain

Trump is set to visit the Uk on the 3rd of June, but many people don’t want him to.
A series of protests and boycotts are already lining up, as this could be one of the tensest state visits in recent years.


So who’s not showing up to the state dinner?
Well, the Duchess of Sussex; Meghan Markle was openly against Trump, is set not to meet the US president during his state visit. Not quite snubbing the meeting, but she is on maternity leave from her duties, which conveniently includes state dinners and the such. Back in 2016, she made her position on Trump quite clear :
“You’re not just voting for a woman if it’s Hillary because she’s a woman, but certainly because Trump has made it easy to see that you don’t really want that kind of world that he’s painting.”
She is not the only royal with issues with the Trumpster, Prince Charles and Donald Trump have very different views on climate change. So the traditional invitation for visiting heads of state to Clarence house for tea might get lost in the mail. Not to mention that the last time the US president was in the UK, Prince Charles and Prince William were both err… “busy”. Charles at a board meeting and William at a charity polo match, giving him quite the royal “sod off” if you ask me.
So what do the politicians think?

Source (Image 1, Image 2, Image 3)


Parliament speaker John Bercow, Opposition Leader Jeremy Corbyn, Liberal Democrats Leader Sir Vince Cable all don’t want to meet trump and have already made it clear that they won’t be attending the state dinner.


So far the only people in Parliament who seem to have openly and publically welcomed trump are:

  • Theresa May (who barely has any friends at this point)
  • Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt who said “the UK should offer the best possible welcome to the president( but let’s be honest it’s his job to be nice to Trump)

So the state dinner might have a few vacant seats… but that’s not the only place where the US president might get a cold reception.
State visits sometimes include a speech in the British parliament, but even here, there are already people who aren’t too keen on him being allowed into the building, let alone the House of Commons.
The moment everyone’s tension will be highest though will be two moments: Two speeches by the US president, one at the state dinner and one in the House of Commons. While the state dinner is important, the speech in the House of Commons is as well but parliament is a little more complicated. House Speaker John Bercow said he doesn’t feel that Donald Trump should be allowed to formally address the MPs but his office will put the request through the normal process just the same (despite he can technically Veto the speech).
And last but not certainly not least is the 200,000 protestors estimate to demonstrate. Aside from the return of the Trump baby, it seems that robot trump is also making its way to the UK.

And of course, the ironic twist of fate is that said “dumping” robot, was made in, you guessed it… China.

And with the success of the Trump baby balloon last year, it’s organisers are planning for a bigger one with talks about the possibility of a hot air balloon version.


But is all this necessary, in the past the Queen entertained Romania’s Ceauşescu, Zimbabwe’s Mugabe and Zaire’s Mobutu. Alongside them, Trump might seem an angel.

The more hate is thrown at him, the more his supporters will rally to defend him. Which raises the question, if so many people hate him and want him out of office, why is there a fear that he will take the second term?

Has the immigration crisis alarmed the EU?


In 2015, Europe saw over 1 million asylum seekers arrive, with Germany taking the first step in August 2015 to open its borders. Other European states followed the example, and since then, that number has risen to a staggering 4 million people. But where are we today? Some of the most welcoming countries are waking up to a scary realisation of an increase of right-wing groups. More shockingly than this, is that one of the countries to report a sharp rise in alt-right activity is none other than Sweeden.

But how did a country so progressive make such a u-turn?

Most of the supporters of these right-wing groups are disgruntled conservatives and people who have just or about to fall beneath the poverty line. But many people are unhappy that the taxpayers’ money is being used to fund these welfare programs. But is the slight addition to the host country’s economy, is that really all that’s pushed so many people to support right-wing parties?

Well not quite, you see many are unhappy with what they claim to be no-go-zones. 

Here is a small clip from 60 minutes on Sweeden and its so-called no-go-zone.


But, perhaps we’re overblowing this situation, and it is just limited to Sweeden?

France is also facing clashes. With incidents happening specifically on religious sites, also begs the question of drawing a line between religious freedom racist behaviour. Instead of asking if taking in refugees will make the problem disappear, shouldn’t the world be wondering about what can be done?

Sources (Clockwise: Image 1, Image 2, Image 3)

But what does all this say?

Countries of different cultures can co-exist, trade, and have a peaceful relationship; so what’s happening in the EU? Some believe that cultures who have been forced together end up clashing. Although others insist that this kind of suggestion is racist and that there should be no problem in taking on more refugees. But things didn’t go according to plan, and videos that have circulated online are not helping the situation.

So what happened?

Is the culture clash bigger than we thought? And was it carried out too suddenly to expect migrants to assimilate correctly?
Was mass immigration too rushed?
For how long can Europe continue to take in migrants?

What is taking so long about Brexit? Or is the UK scared about the aftermath?


Since the BREXIT referendum of the 23rd of June 2016 and today, it’s been 2 years 10 months and 15 days. By the time that the final date on the 31st of October comes, and the UK leaves, it will be over 3 years of exhausting negotiations between two parties which have left the British public, waiting and disappointed.

But is Brexit limited to just the UK?

But the UK is not the only country to have had a growing anti-EU movement. The two others who were rumoured to have started talking about leaving were Sweeden and the Netherlands.


The Sweedish Democrats leader Jimmie Åkesson, who held an anti-Eu sentiment has now changed this to :


“Cooperation is needed to achieve results, and it is through collaboration that opportunities for reforming the EU from the inside are improved,” he wrote, adding that the Sweden Democrats are now a part of the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) group within the European Parliament and that it has established good relationships with its “Nordic friends in the Danish People’s Party and the True Finns”.


However, while the world focused on the UK in the run-up to 2016 referendum, a Dutch pole by polling firm EenVandaag(source) revealed that at the height of the run-up to the 23rd of June, the popular opinion with a 3% lead, was to leave the EU. Since then, the popular vote returned the popular belief to the remain side; with a 56% lead.

But why?

Those within the EU have been given a cold shower of a wake-up call, on the benefits of the EU; not to mention the costs of leaving. This doesn’t mean that the process is easy for the EU member states, Jean Claude Juncker has been reported to describe it as a tragic failure but has also, to put it frankly, thrown David Cameron under the bus.

but can it be stopped?

The European Court has ruled that with if a democratic resolution is achieved in the British parliament to cancel Brexit or decided upon via a referendum, then the whole process can be stopped.


Can this happen?


If the British parliament cannot agree on the deal by the 22nd of May, then the UK must take part in the European elections. People are also expecting Theresa May will be forced to resign as MP’s continue to leave her side after she made the following speech and blamed the delay of Brexit on Parliament.

So now it seems the only way that the UK can hope to move to a U-turn out of article 50 will probably require two options:

  1. Theresa is forced to stand down as Prime Minister
  2. For Nigel Farage to repeat the same anti-EU message.

Wait, number 2 doesn’t sound quite right.

Hear me out.

As the Brexit party drives forward, so have the other parties started to speak. This time people who were silently leaning to remain will make their opinions heard to avoid Nigel Farage being successful again, if possible, loud enough to force another referendum to remain.

So, is the British Parliament just trying to buy more time for democracy or to try and restore a remain situation?

Do you think the UK can back out of this crisis? Or will Brexit go-ahead?


Can you name a modern fascist group?……ANTIFA.


Nowadays, a very quick and easy response to conservatives is the label: “Fascist!”

But where does it come from?

Now most people would automatically think of WWII and the Nazis….wrong

Some will actually say it’s from the Italian word fascismo, referring to the political movement spearheaded by Benito Mussolini…..close….but still wrong.

I say close because it did originate in Italy(not Germany) and was conceptualized by one Giovanni Gentile.


 The man was the self-styled “Philosopher of Fascism” and was essential in creating the foundation of fascism.

Well, Giovanni’s philosophical mentor and inspiration was none other than Karl Marx. In his writings about fascism, Gentile explained how he believed that the entire community was at the service of the state because the state was the community. Sound familiar? Hold that thought.



Fun Fact about fascism: It’s a form of Government, not a political alignment.

The Nazi party was an ultra-nationalist party that used fascism to function.

So what exactly is Fascism? Fascism is a form of government that most noticeably uses the forcible suppression of opposition and control of media, industry, and commerce. 

Notice how no mention of political alignment is mentioned there. That’s because the opposite of Fascism is not communism, but rather libertarian.

Neither a socialist or a nationalist must exclusively be a fascist.

Now ANTIFA is short for Anti Fascist. Ironic that their methods are exactly like those of those they hate. ANTIFA is a self-proclaimed left-wing group that feels that they can use any means necessary to crush whoever they feel is part of, or in support of Neo-Nazism and far-right groups. While that doesn’t sound too bad, they really do mean, any means necessary.

The real problem is, they very often award the label of fascist, to anyone who disagrees with them. This is where that previously mention, any means necessary, happens. It always involves yelling and very often if there are enough members, they will surround the person. From a bird’s eye view,  it probably looks like the exact definition of a mob. There have even been serious reports of extremely violent crimes committed by ANTIFA members.

ANTIFA has been known to also start riots that commit violence by targeting anything they consider to be commercially owned, be it businesses, property or cars.

Their idea is that a community has a right to defend itself against anything it considers a threat, even if it is an idea. Freedom of speech is acceptable as long as it conforms to their socio-political ideology. Otherwise, that freedom is drowned out by the noise of being labelled and branded.


It’s ironic isn’t it, those who wish to preserve freedom of speech and freedom of expression are quick to crush the speech and expression that doesn’t agree with theirs.

The truth is if one fine day somebody could actually hand over everything this group demands, the hoped-for result of an absolute balance, would turn out to be a one-way ticket to anarchy(no stops and no turnarounds).

….and where are we today?

It is true, the numbers of this violent group are dwindling. But certain left-wing politicians, are working quite hard to push certain parts of the establishment the wrong way.  Just like what happened recently in Portland, Oregon. In a violent clash between Antifa and a free-speech group(who some, have claimed are a far-right group), it was noted that police seemed uninterested in the Antifa rioters and seemed to focus on their opponents.

Many have pointed out online that Portland’s mayor has quite the reputation for being quite the hardcore left winger who prefers to turn a blind eye to Antifa as they are self-proclaimed left-wingers too. I believe this just goes to show, that while the left, makes accusations of corruption, they also make use of …the end justifies the means… attitude also. 

When a cause is pushed without prudence at the helm, it’s bound to fall into the same traps as it’s failed, predecessors.

With society turning into one big complaints department, thank God for capitalism…


I mean it, take a good look at your local social media feeds and you’ll find too many people, complaining about too many arbitrary


We are slowly but surely becoming lazier, ridiculously wastefully and self-centered. 



So why is it a good thing that we live in a capitalist society?

Well complaining about a problem doesn’t always solve problems and when it does, it is simply a patch up job that is only there as a quick fix; but does not solve the heart of the problem. This allows the problem to resurface later on. The best case scenario here very often is that the situation hasn’t gotten worse.

A capitalist society means that someone will find a solution, for a price. Eventually, the price goes down and becomes more affordable for the many. Many people agree that trickle-down economics backfired, but trickle down technology means that eventually, everyone gets a better quality of life.

How does capitalism therefore help?

Well, the short answer is: it drives progress. Capitalism is all about profit, this is what a business is out to acquire. Very often, that means having the latest product that offers more value for money than the competition. And somebody has to make that latest product. That somebody is paid a lot of money for a very profitable idea, so people do have an incentive to excel in the convenient world we have built for ourselves.

It’s kinda funny, isn’t it…

Human beings are the only species that could achieve a global unity; yet for us to have come thus far, we were driven by the hard-wired lesson in our minds on having a selfish sense of self-preservation. 


People should try to pursue a dream with passion, even more so when it has the potential to sustain them and become their livelihood. When people do this they are helping an economy grow in a positive way, this is why we need to support our local entrepreneurs. These are the builders of a better world.

If you have a dream then follow it. If you know someone who has a dream and you can help, do it.

Is this ideal, actually yes. As society continues to advance its means of communication the world is becoming a smaller place, so the means to help one another is growing. 


Progress is not driven by big corporations who handle small problems, but by small individuals who understand the big picture to find the solution.



Gender quotas… Well-intentioned, but illogical.


“Most of the evil in this world is done by people with good intentions.” 

                                                                                       ― T.S. Eliot

When a progressive idea has to be enforced by the rule of law, you have a clear indication that you are faced with a destructive communal problem.

…and that’s exactly what imposed gender quotas are. 

While I’m all for equal opportunity, I don’t think that gender quotas are. I will be the first person to say that anyone can try to achieve a dream or goal and I would be the first to applaud it…but this is about choosing the best person for the job.

When it comes to performance in a career, a regular job or even trying to gain recognition for your passion; people expect a lot. It’s that simple… Some people scream that’s not fair, but I think that it is. Anyone can at the very least endeavor, to take on a task with the right combination of guidance, experience and hard work (and let’s be honest a good bit of luck at the right time), anyone can achieve any realistic goal they pursue. 

Sometimes, this leads to certain imbalances in certain work environments and this is to be expected. Society itself chooses its preferred opinion on various matters..much like politics. This is reflected also in various industry studies where men were more likely to choose certain career paths than women while women themselves held dominion over other industries.

Has this been affected differently across various cultures?

Of course.

Does that mean we can enforce a U-turn? 

Absolutely not.

So what can we do?

Well, the thing is this… 

Let’s think of a job(or whatever requirement for some sort of earning) environment. Now let’s think of the team. If you want your team to win, then you need the right teammates. Anyone who has the capacity for rational thought and/or is leading a team understands that the package in which the right teammate comes in; is irrelevant…it’s the performance that counts.

It’s also important to point out that in reality, you can in the interest of equality quotas even continue to subdivide people into so many more groups that it is a short and fast shortcut to ridiculous. Instead of trying to impose a quota, the positive attitude towards working towards a dream needs to be taught from an early age onward. 

I’m not talking about unrealistic expectations here, but if people can be instilled with the courage to attempt regular baby steps towards achieving a goal…then society will start to experience many more winners, a lot fewer whiners. 


They nominated him for what?!…. ….Would you give it to him?



Absolutely not. This is where I draw the line. Personally, I think there is no way that Trump would be awarded that award.

Obama got the 2009 award and many debates, even today if it was justified.

Why are they saying Trump should get it?

Since North and South Korea shook hands and declared; that they had started the journey of peace and to denuclearise the Korean Peninsula, the Republicans are already hailing that Trump’s initial pressure and then quick U-turn gamble in accepting North Korea’s invitation was a remarkable albeit risky victory.  

Trump hasn’t even met Kim yet, but Fox News is already repeating the words “De-Nuke”. Watch the latest video at

But he isn’t going to get a prize. Should the meeting happen; he will portray it as a success over the failings of his predecessors. A success which will help him in his campaign for re-election but no more than that.

What’s are the real reason Trump won’t get it.

Well, one possibility is that it would be a PR issue that they wouldn’t recover from. Just imagine. People boycotting the Nobel Prize because they awarded it to Trump. The prestige of the various parties involved in choosing Trump would be tarnished in the eyes of too many. 

So will they take that risk?….No

The result is, of course, is that many people who support him display their outrage. Capture

Societies are constantly becoming more polarised and divisive despite calls for co-operation. Due to this, I think that it’s safe to say that just like the USA, a lot of westernized countries will soon follow the same road and this will mean a sudden rise in conservatism.  I don’t think the wave will spill over into a hard right perspective but it will need to be watched and managed very carefully.

If the Democrats want to get back into the driver seat, then they are going to have to sit down and wait a bit. Trump will present a very difficult challenge in 2020 but after that will no longer be an issue. That’s their window. 

If the pay gap against women is real, businesses would become sexist towards men.


Let me explain what I’m saying…and then you can go nuts.
Now we’ve all heard about the Gender Pay Gap…. so no need to go into too much detail about it.
But here is a quick summary for those who aren’t too familiar:
Quick Wikipedia search the phrase Gender pay gap and the introductory paragraph is as follows:

The gender pay gap is the average difference between a man’s and a woman’s remuneration.

There are two distinct numbers regarding the pay gap:
Unadjusted versus adjusted pay gap. The latter takes into account differences in hours worked, occupations chosen, education and job experience. For example, someone who takes time off (e.g. maternity leave) will likely not earn as much as someone who does not take time off from work. Factors like this contribute to lower yearly earnings for women; while the pay gap has narrowed over time, a gender pay gap still exists, even when controlling for these external factors. Unadjusted pay gaps are much higher.
In the United States, for example the unadjusted average female’s annual salary has commonly been cited as being 78% of the average male salary, compared to 88-93% for the adjusted average salary for college graduates.

Source : Wikipedia

So, the summary provided… onward then.

I have to point out that the points provided by the movement against the gender pay gap, actually would result in businesses acting in a sexist way towards men, rather than women.
The biggest claim(or as the opposing side call it; the myth) being, that:

Businesses will pay a man more than women, for the exact same job.

With just a bit of reasoning, it’s easy to see why that doesn’t make sense; the following being aside from it being against the law in most countries where this issue is protested.
Ask around for what the purpose of a business is and the easiest answer is :

…to make a profit…

Expand it ever so slightly and you can get an easy formula like this: Gross Sales minus Expenses = Profit.
That translates into; the more money your business generates while reducing more of its expenses; the more profit it can yield.
So let’s apply the myth to a real-life scenario…
Bob has a company and he needs an employee. He gets two applications, from a man and woman respectively.
Let’s call them John and Jane.
According to many feminist movements, if John and Jane are of equal qualification; then John gets the job.
Woah, WHAT?!…*Said my internal dialogue*
This isn’t going to hold, and here’s why:
If a company attempts to act in a sexist way, it would only do so towards its own detriment. If both applicants, are of equal qualification but it would cost the business less to employ the female applicant; then the only way that the business would employ the man would mean that it is prepared to go against its very purpose for the sake of sexism.
This is impossible. The reason being that as a whole and in the profit intended running, a business doesn’t allow itself to make a sexist decision like that because; it would make less profit for no logical reason.
If the myth is true we can go a bit further and say, women would get hired more and that would result in an active discrimination towards men.
How? It would eventually mean that the average of earnings(this is by using the myth supporter’s methods of calculation no less) of both genders, should reflect that women would be earning more as a whole; while men will get less as a whole. Resulting in the original statement that women earn less, shattering; because men wouldn’t be hired, resulting in men not even earning enough to compete on the same graph as a collective against women.
Let me go back to the quote for a second.

Unadjusted versus adjusted pay gap. The latter takes into account differences in hours worked, occupations chosen, education and job experience.

If the latter, mentioned in the above is not properly adjusted for; then the facts provided by the myth supporters is actually fiction from the start. Real life scenario’s take the above mentioned into account.

I wish someone would explain to me, why feminists are pushing to debating an issue that:

  • doesn’t happen in the legally correct job environment,
  • is not a concept that society finds fair or acceptable,
  • would actually lead to women dominating the job market in the future.

Just because there are situations where wrongdoing is committed it doesn’t mean that the collective is bad.

People must stop condemning the barrel, because of a few bad apples.

Where in the world is burning? : ART. 01


The Lion’s after the bear,

Pyongyang is playing with its train set,

and the eagle keeps kicking people out of the nest…

…heck of a week.

With the UK leading the charge against Russia, we kinda have to look around and understand what’s happening.

Theresa May warns Europe that Russia is a real Threat. Image Source

The recent collective expulsion of Russian intelligence officers from twenty-eight different countries is the biggest in history. Tensions continue to grow, as more and more diplomats keep getting sent home and lines of diplomacy have started to degrade.



Interestingly enough North Korea’s relationship with Beijing seems to have improved as the recent rumours of a North Korean train travelling within China; turned out to be true. Convenient? I dunno…

See here’s the thing… recently Trump accepted an invitation to meet with Kim Jong-un. Part of the agreement is that the North Koreans would work to denuclearise the Korean peninsula. 

…the North Koreans were in Beijing. On an unofficial visit, but it is confirmed that they offered a pledge to denuclearise…

Kim Jong-un with the chinese delegation on his private train. Image Source

Many see this as a positive thing, but of course, you’ll still find some like Michael J Green who told ABC News :

it’s morally distasteful for the President of the United States to meet with the leader of a truly evil, Stalinist regime that is also a criminal enterprise.

The truth is that the above is proof, that many politicians push an agenda for the sake of a political game but I don’t they genuinely care about the people they represent. No one is going to dispute, that the North Korean dictator is considered to be one of the evilest people currently in power.

But the fact that even an extended hand of potentially better diplomatic ties is considered bad by Trump’s opponents, is practically sigh-worthy at this point.

The reason the Democrats are doing so badly is that instead of saying…it’s true, we don’t have a better idea… they continue to try and discredit everything without proper justification.

Don’t get me wrong, Trump gives the impression of someone who invited everyone to a party but isn’t the life of it.

He keeps firing members of staff(but apparently, he doesn’t do it himself), who then start painting a picture of what’s going on in the White House.

Donald Trump with now ex -VA Secretary David Shulkin who is the latest to the large growing list of those dismissed by the American President. Image Source 

Many claims that Trump is like a bull in a china shop and with the rising tensions with Russia, Americans are quite uneasy with their leader. A small observation is that a spokeswoman for the American State Department, referred to the ex-Russian Spy and his Russian daughter as British Citizens; I don’t know about you but that was something that caught my eye.

If we start to refer to the Sergei Skripal as a British Citizen, it will certainly sound very different to the average individual. An ex-Russian spy being poisoned by Russia is something that some would describe as the usual M.O. for the Russians since the 70s. Calling him a British citizen shows me that the ball is shifting. I personally don’t think many people realise that, and we are only a few misunderstandings away from a someone like Trump to push things in the wrong direction. 

I know what you’re thinking, oh there are plenty of safeguards against this sort of thing. The thing is that I feel like Trump is the little kid at the grown-ups party simply bouncing around till he gets real attention. It’s just that this little guy has a stockpile of nuclear weapons, is considered the leader of the free world and is a major superpower; sure what could go wrong.

And who is he backing up?

Theresa May.

I have to be honest, I kinda feel bad for her. She got elected as prime minister because Cameron screwed up in the Brexit referendum, and she wasn’t even elected with a normal election. Currently holds an atrocious approval rating and she has to lead the UK out of the EU.  

People need to get away from the sleight of hand being performed in front us and take off the wool that is covering our eyes and elect leaders that really do make a difference. And maybe we could ostracise those who have failed us, as a warning to any future politicians who want to take their country for a joy ride.


So that’s what has been going on, tune in next month for another parade of noteworthy gambles by the egomaniacs we call world leaders.