Joan of Arc

I believe one of the greatest stories in all of world history involves Joan of Arc dating back to the 15th century in France.

I knew the name Joan of Arc from history courses and connected her to some heroic efforts for France in the Hundred Years' War with England.

However, I did not have a full appreciation for Joan of Arc, and her incredible story,  until a good friend gifted me a book that Mark Twain had written about her.

The book was published in 1896 and although some events in the novel are fictionalized the main events in the life of Joan are rendered faithfully.

Twain spent over a decade carefully researching the life and events surrounding Joan of Arc.

The story is told from the perspective of Joan of Arc's page and secretary who is the fictional Sieur Louis de Conte in the book.

However, Twain drew most of the story from the official court records of the Great Trial of 1431 and the Process of Rehabilitation a quarter of a century later that documented most of Joan of Arc's history.

Twain confronted the questions he might get about the biography he wrote not being consistent with the historical record in the preface to the book.

Twain sets the stage for how incredible the story of Joan of Arc is with this quote that also precedes the historical narrative that follows.

 

Yes, that got my attention as it should anyone.

It certainly captivated Twain for most of his life which led him to research and write something far, far different than he ever did during his entire career.

This is the summary of the story of Joan of Arc that was prepared for me by the AI tool Grok.

Twain's story is entirely consistent with this account.

The Story of Joan of Arc

Joan of Arc, born around 1412 in Domrémy, a small village in northeastern France, was a peasant girl who rose to become one of history’s most iconic figures. Growing up during the Hundred Years’ War, a prolonged conflict between England and France, Joan lived in a time of political turmoil and English dominance over large parts of French territory.

Divine Visions and Mission

Around age 13, Joan began experiencing visions and hearing voices she believed came from God, Saint Michael, Saint Catherine, and Saint Margaret. These voices instructed her to drive the English out of France and ensure the Dauphin, Charles VII, was crowned king. Despite her young age, lack of education, and humble background, Joan was determined to fulfill this divine mission.In 1429, at age 17, Joan traveled to Vaucouleurs to seek support from Robert de Baudricourt, a local commander. Initially skeptical, he eventually provided her an escort to meet Charles VII at Chinon. Dressed in men’s clothing for safety and practicality, Joan convinced Charles of her divine calling, possibly through a private revelation. Charles granted her permission to join the French army and lead efforts to relieve the besieged city of Orléans.

Military Leadership and Victories

Joan’s arrival at Orléans in April 1429 galvanized the French troops. Her faith, confidence, and unconventional tactics inspired soldiers and civilians alike. She led assaults against English fortifications, and within days, the siege was lifted—a stunning victory that marked a turning point in the war. Joan’s leadership continued with successes in the Loire Valley, including the Battle of Patay, which decimated English forces.

Her victories paved the way for Charles VII’s coronation in Reims in July 1429, a symbolically crucial event that legitimized his rule and boosted French morale. Joan stood by Charles during the ceremony, her mission partially fulfilled. However, she continued fighting, believing her divine mandate extended to liberating more of France, including Paris. An unsuccessful assault on Paris in September 1429 marked a setback, but Joan remained undeterred.

Capture and Trial

In May 1430, during a skirmish at Compiègne, Joan was captured by Burgundian forces, allies of the English. She was sold to the English for 10,000 francs and handed over to an ecclesiastical court in Rouen, controlled by pro-English clergy. The trial, beginning in January 1431, was a politically charged effort to discredit Joan and, by extension, Charles VII’s legitimacy.

Accused of heresy, witchcraft, and dressing as a man (considered scandalous), Joan faced intense interrogation. Despite her lack of formal education, she defended herself with remarkable clarity, maintaining that her visions were divine. On May 24, 1431, under pressure and threats of execution, she briefly recanted, signing a document abjuring her visions. However, days later, she retracted her recantation, reaffirming her faith in her divine mission. On May 30, 1431, at age 19, Joan was burned at the stake in Rouen’s marketplace, her execution witnessed by a large crowd.

Legacy and Canonization

Joan’s death did not end her influence. Her execution fueled French resistance, and by 1453, France had expelled the English from most of its territory. In 1456, a posthumous retrial, ordered by Charles VII, declared Joan innocent and condemned the original trial as unjust, proclaiming her a martyr. Over centuries, her story grew into a symbol of French nationalism, courage, and faith.

In 1909, the Catholic Church beatified Joan, and in 1920, she was canonized as Saint Joan of Arc. Today, she is revered as a patron saint of France, soldiers, and prisoners, and her life inspires countless books, films, and artworks. Joan’s story is one of extraordinary conviction, defying societal norms and altering the course of history through her unwavering belief in her divine purpose.

Take a step back and consider how incredible all of this is.

And yet, it really did happen.

A uneducated peasant girl named Joan at age 13 began experiencing visions and voices from God and holy spirits and takes it upon herself to drive the English out of France and insure that Charles VII was crowned king.

At age 17 she convinces Charles to allow her to join the French army where she leads and rallies the troops and turns the tide against England and paves the way for the coronation of Charles VII.

She leads the French forces for a year until she is captured in battle, sold to the English and put on trial for heresy, witchcraft and dressing like a man.

Despite all that Joan of Arc did for France and Charles VII, they do nothing to retrieve her from the British and allow her to be burned at the stake at age 19.

When you consider the story of Joan of Arc it is hard to not believe that the hand of God was, in fact, directing all of this.

How else could a peasant girl of 17 years achieve so much?

How could she be so pivotal in altering the course of history in France?

However, if this is true, how could this brave and loyal servant of God be left to burn at the stake at the age of 19?

They are interesting questions and surely were big reasons why Mark Twain was so intrigued with Joan of Arc and her story.

It is a story that more should be familiar with.

It is also difficult to not see some parallels with Charlie Kirk in all of this.

I am not suggesting Charlie Kirk is destined for sainthood but we also have a very young person who was driven by deep religious faith and believed there was a calling in his life to make a difference.

That life was also much too brief considering all of the potential they had for the future.

Why would God pour that much into these young people and then have their lives cut short?

It is another reminder that we mortals cannot understand God’s plans.

However, it takes faith to understand there is a plan.

Would Joan of Arc be as revered today if she had not been burned at the stake for her convictions?

What has the assassination of Charlie Kirk done for the revival of America that might not have been possible otherwise?

Many thanks for Joel R. for gifting me Twain’s book and giving me the opportunity to know more about the incredible story of Joan of Arc.

You can tie yourself into knots attempting to explain how Joan of Arc was able to accomplish what she did.

In the end, it is impossible without acknowledging the hand of God in all of it.

Do You Self-Silence?

How often do you self-silence yourself?

"Self-silence" is the term that is used when people who hold minority viewpoints on controversial topics self-silence when discussing their opinions.

Researchers in a recent study conducted at Ohio State University found that participants who disagreed with a majority view avoided fully expressing their stance and engaged in behaviors that made it appear they aligned with the majority.

Therefore, those who self-silence often acted in opposition to their true beliefs.

The suppression of minority views in this way has the effect of making it seem that majority opinions are more widely held and stronger than they really are.

Why do people self-silence?

It is much easier to not rock the boat.

Why introduce potential conflict to a relationship?

It is also important to remember that the natural human condition is to be a conformist.

Human beings have a "herd instinct" every bit as strong as many animals.

Throughout most of human history it was very dangerous to one's security to separate themselves too far from the herd.

That carries over to today. You often feel better and more secure in conforming and not sticking your head out from the crowd. Being part of the crowd carries less risk. It is safer to be a part of the crowd so you can avoid being called out or noticed.

The greatest example of self-silencing we have seen in recent years was during the 2016 election between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.

The overwhelming consensus was that Hillary Clinton would beat Trump easily.

Trump supporters were portrayed as miscreants by the media.

Hillary herself referred to many Trump supporters as a "basket of deplorables".

During the 2016  presidential campaign not many people who supported Trump were willing to admit it.

However, Trump won.

There was a lot of self-silencing going on.

People did not have to worry about self-silencing when they went into the privacy of the voting booth.

That is a big reason Trump's win in 2016 was a shock to so many people.

Source: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-09/us-election-of-president-gets-mixed-results-from-voters/8010774

Source: https://www.politico.com/states/new-york/city-hall/story/2016/11/clinton-election-night-party-new-york-trump-107218

"How could this happen. No one I talk to is for Trump?"

This caused a lot of angst and anger that continues today as Trump is serving a second term.

Source: https://www.lohud.com/picture-gallery/news/2025/02/18/see-photos-of-not-my-presidents-day-protests-across-us/79060182007/

The same is true on any number of other controversial issues that liberals hold dear to their heart and the media portrays as if they are majority mainstream issues.

A good portion of the liberal agenda is promoted by vocal voices on the left and reinforced in the media to make it seem it is a majority position.

This is particularly true on college campuses.

A recent study involving 1,452 confidential interviews at Northwestern University and the University of Michigan found that an astounding 88% of students had pretended to hold more progressive views than they truly believed at some point in order to succeed socially or academically.

Of the 88% who admitted to self silencing, 78% said they self-censor their beliefs on gender identity, 72% on politics, and 68% on family values. That’s a lot of people who are self-silencing in order to fit it.

Source: https://thehill.com/opinion/education/5446702-performative-virtue-signaling-has-become-a-threat-to-higher-ed/

The Ohio State study concluded that self-silencing can have very concerning effects.

“It leads to a public perception that the minority viewpoint doesn’t exist – it is less important. It becomes this vicious cycle where people’s true thoughts aren’t expressed and the public belief is the majority opinion is overwhelming and can’t be changed,” she said.

“That’s especially true if those with the minority viewpoints are behaviorally going along with the majority.  It is just more evidence that the majority opinion is dominant.”

The findings call for people to become more aware of their own beliefs and how they express them. Those with minority views need to be willing to discuss their true beliefs, even if they feel uncomfortable, Sintov said.

And on the other side, those in the majority need to be willing to hear the thoughts of the other side, even if they don’t agree with them.

“We need to be open to civil discourse in our society. It has to be a two-way street,” Sintov said.

I am as guilty as anyone in self-silencing at times in order to avoid conflict.

However, I never pretend to have views that I do not believe in.

I just stay silent.

That is not easy for me because on most controversial issues I have done a considerable amount of research and I can back up my views and can challenge those who have the opposite opinion with facts and data.

When I do, the typical response is "I have never heard that" or "That can't be true". 

There is almost never a reasoned response. 

You can also usually tell when someone you are with is self-silencing themselves.

If you are in a group talking about politics or some other controversial issue notice the person who does not join in the conversation and does not say anything. You can be sure they do not agree with you and are self-silencing.

I am told by many BeeLine readers that what they value most about my blog is that it gives them factual information they can use to support their views and opinions with friends and relatives.

Armed with facts or data they do not feel that they have to self-silence.

They feel better equipped to engage and debate important issues.

Be aware of self-silencing---both yours and others.

Everyone should be more willing to engage in civil discourse to debate and discuss important topics.

It is only through this process that we can better understand all sides of an issue and arrive at the optimal decisions for our society.

This is exactly what made Charlie Kirk so special.

He purposely went on to college campuses where self-silencing is most in evidence.

Charlie gave students with conservative views the confidence they were not alone.

He also was willing to draw out the views and opinions of the those on the Left in a civil discussion and debate.

In that process many younger Americans were exposed to ideas, facts and viewpoints they had never considering before. 

The result is that youngest generation of Americans has become more conservative than their older brothers and sisters. 

 

Charlie Kirk is not the sole reason for this transformation, but his influence was undeniable in this emerging trend.

Younger people no longer believe they have to self-silence.

On the other hand,  considering the astounding number of people who celebrated in the wake of the assassination of Charlie Kirk, there are clearly a large number of Leftists who should be self-silencing a lot more.

They do not seem to comprehend they are in the minority.

The silent majority found its voice in Charlie Kirk.

Many will never self-silence again due to the example he set.

 

All In A Name

I have written in the past that I am a "name nerd."

I find names interesting.

You can read some previous posts I have written on names here, here and here.

There usually is a story involved in most names.

Historically, family names have been the predominant means of naming a baby.  That is one of the reasons that if you went back to the 1880's, one in every four boys was named John, William, James or George. One reason--they did not have access to baby name books or the internet. What was the one book people had? The Bible.

A lot has changed in the baby name business in the last 30 or 40 years. The most important change has been the accessibility of information on the internet. Instead of relying on the Bible, family history or a dog-eared baby name book of 1,000 names, you can now peruse 10,000 names at the click of a mouse.

You can also learn exactly how popular the name is, what other people think of it on 7 dimensions (strong? sexy? sophisticated? smart?) and other people's experiences with the name from websites such as Nameberry.

Names are also cyclical coming in and out of favor. Names of friends in my high school years have gotten old and out of favor (Barbara, Nancy, Janet, Keith, Dennis etc) at the same time that names of my grandparents' friends are newly discovered and become popular once again (Olivia, Emma, Clara, Henry, George).

Names also do not generally tell you much about the person who has the name but it can tell you something about the parents (particularly the mother) who chose the name according to Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner in their book Freakanomcs. That book contains an entire chapter on names.

While the above statement is generally true, I have found some interesting data recently that certain names are more or less common in indicating whether that person is a registered Democrat or Republican.

For example, this is a list of the names most likely to be registered as Democrats based on research of voter registration rolls by Zachary Donnini and Havish Netla.

Notice that although this involves the names most likely to be a Democrat they are exclusively female names.

I am going to go out on a limb here and also suggest that these name are almost all African American women.

Neither of those conclusions should be a surprise since women, particularly Black women, are more likely to vote Democrat.

This is a list of the male names that tend to be associated with Democrat registrations.

Of note, Md is short version for Mohammed that is predominantly found in the New York voter rolls.

If you consider all forms of the name Mohammed, Donnini found 82% of the time it was associated with a a Democrat registration.

If we just focus on White registered voter names, these are the most likely to be Democrats.

If you know a Maya, odds are she is a Democrat.

These are the most Republican names.

Again, this list involves all names-male and female.

Notice that all of these names that tilt Republican are male names.

I would also surmise that most are White with a good chance that they were born in the South or Southwest areas of the country.

This should also not be a surprise as White males are voting Republican in large numbers these days.

The list of most Republican female names is particularly interesting.

Female immigrants from Russia and the former Soviet-bloc countries lean heavily to the GOP.

Isn't that interesting?

Do these women know something that other women should be educated about?

Zachary Donnini who compiled this data stated that Karlee, Kassie, Kylee, Rylee, Reagan, Bailee, and Baylee all rank in the Top 25 for GOP female names, but they get bumped from the Top 10 because of those Slavic names.

I am guessing that some of these names might have also been among those young women who famously did those sorority recruitment dance numbers last month.

Link if the video does not open in your browser.

One of the interesting things in looking at the names on the lists above is the wide divergence in the names of Black and White Americans.

This is something that was written about in Freakanomics citing the research of Professor Roland G. Fryer, Jr. of Harvard University.

Professor Roland G. Fryer, Jr.

Fryer has the distinction of being the youngest African American professor (at age 30) to receive tenure at Harvard.

Fryer has spent his career on attempting to understand and quantify the problem of the black achievement gap in America, hoping that hard, scientific data would shed light on the most effective ways to narrow the gap.

One of the questions that Fryer has wrestled with is the virtual segregation of culture between Whites and Blacks in the United States.

They watch different tv shows, they smoke different cigarettes, they like different music as well as the fact that Black parents give their children names that are vastly different from White children.

Fryer came to wonder whether Black culture is a cause of the economic disparity between Blacks and Whites or merely a reflection of it?

Fryer's research found that up until the early 1970's there was significant overlap between Black and White names.

In 1970, a baby girl born in a Black neighborhood was given a name that was only twice as common among Blacks than White.

By 1980 that baby girl received a name that was twenty times more common among Blacks.

There is not any divergence of this magnitude in the names of Asian or Hispanic children compared to Whites.

Such was the influence of the Black Power movement that began in the 1970's where there was a decided trend to celebrate Black culture and disassociate from White culture.

That influence is still very apparent today when looking at the voter registration data compiled by Donnini and Netla.

The unanswered question is the one that Fryer originally set out to unravel.

Is Black culture a cause of economic disparity or merely a reflection of it?

Some questions remain very difficult to answer even after years of study and research.

What we do know is that by just hearing certain names there is a good chance you can discern the politics of that person without knowing anything else about them.

Musings On Population and Demography

Some musings on population and demographics to put some global issues in context.

Russia gets a lot of media attention in the United States.

We constantly heard about Russian collusion in the 2016 election until it was proven it was a hoax and began as a political operation by Hillary Clinton to harm Donald Trump's election prospects.

Of course, that Russia, Russia Russia hoax was then legitimized by the FBI and CIA who did not want to see Trump in the Oval Office.

All of the reasons for that are still not clear. Yes, they did not want Trump to be President but what would possess them to go to the extraordinary lengths they did to attempt to undermine him the way they did?

Over the last several years media attention has been on Russia for its war with Ukraine.

Untold numbers have been killed on both sides of this conflict.

No one in the West knows for sure how large the human toll has been for Russia but some estimates have total Russian casualties of 1 million which include 250,000 killed in action.

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2025/jun/22/one-million-and-counting-russian-casualties-hit-milestone-in-ukraine-war

For context, Russia's population is only 144 million.

That is almost 200 million fewer than the population of the United States.

One reason for that is that 27 million in the Soviet Union were killed in World War II.

If you take that number out of your population it will result in compounded effects on future population trends.

For context, the United States sustained 420,000 deaths in WWII.

We almost never hear about Bangladesh in the American media.

I thought this graphic from BrilliantMaps.com puts all of this in better context.

Bangladesh has a population of 172 million compared to the 144 million in Russia.

Compare the land mass that each country represents.

If the casualties of Russia keep rising it may have to make a move on Bangladesh just to have personnel to wage its war on Ukraine.

It is crowded in Bangladesh but it is also crowded next door in India.

1.45 million people now inhabit India.

That population matches the entire number of people in North and South America and the European Union combined!

There are now an estimated 5.4 million people in the United States and 2.8 million in Canada that are of Indian origin.

50 million people in India could immigrate to Canada and India would still have 1.4 billion people and would remain the most populous country in the world.

However, if this occurred almost 60% of the population of Canada would be of Indian origin.

It might as well be named New India if that occurred.

At current immigration trends in Canada that might be more likely than it becoming the 51st state.

Look at how the makeup of Canada has changed in the last 40 years as it has embraced open immigration.

Source: Statistics Canada

Source: Statistics Canada

The next Canadian census is next year and the share of native born Canadians will shrink further.

This chart provides some perspective on just how many foreign born persons Canada has allowed into the country the last few years to work or study.

 

Can you say that Canada is Canada if native born Canadians are a minority?

It appears it is only a matter of time before this is a reality.

Finally, it is often said that demography is destiny.

That being said, you only have to look at birth rates around the world to understand what that destiny looks like.

A fertility rate of 2.1 is required to maintain a stable population.

Countries colored in blue in the map below are below the replacement fertility rate.

Countries in green are above replacement.

Yellow countries are within the range of 2.0 to 2.1.

Countries such as Italy (1.2), Ukraine (1.0) and South Korea (.7) are the most at risk of catastrophic population loss. A TFR of 1.0 would mean the county's population would be cut in half in 70 years.

This is a map of the 20 countries with the highest numbers of actual births in 2023 according to the United Nations.

A couple takeaways from the data.

Europe has about 744 million people to 333 million currently in the United States.

However, it has fewer births than the U.S. due to a lower total fertility rate.

Europe's fertility rate is only 1.38 

Ethiopia (4.1 million) has more births than all of Europe (3.6) or the United States (3.7).

Nigeria (7.5) million has more births than the United States and Europe COMBINED! 

India (23.2 million) has about 3 times the number of births that the United States, Europe and Japan (8 million) have COMBINED!

What is the destiny that will ultimately result from these demographic trends?

The United Nations does a population prospects report in which they project future population trends for the world.

All of the data and forecasts below are from the 2024 report.

They see the total population of the world growing from its current 8 billion to 10 billion over the next 50 years and then gradually declining thereafter.

Note the change downwards since the 2013 forecast.

However, considering fertility rates and other factors, the UN sees the world population being distributed far differently than it is today.

Countries such as China, Germany, Russia and Japan have already reached peak population and are forecasted to see their numbers decline dramatically over the remainder of this century.

The populations of China and Japan are forecasted to only be about half of what they are right now by the year 2100.

China is on track to lose over 200 million in its population in the next 25 years.

On the other hand, India, which today it just slightly larger in population than China, is forecast to have twice as many people as China by 2100.

The United States is projected to continue to grow modestly throughout the remainder of this century until reaching 421 million in population in 2100.

However, you have to wonder if the United States will continue to see population growth when you consider this recent survey of 18-29 year old Americans split between young men who voted for Trump and young women for Harris.

Women aged 18-29 voted 61%-38% for Harris over Trump.

Men aged 18-29 voted 49%-48% for Trump.

Consider the difference in attitudes between men and women on what they view as important to their future personal success.

Source: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/poll-gen-zs-gender-divide-reaches-politics-views-marriage-children-suc-rcna229255

Only 6% of age 18-29 women view having children as important to their personal success.

Only 6% view being married as important to their personal success.

Compare those percentages to the young men who voted for Trump.

Women who voted for Trump are more interested in getting married and having children than the Harris voters.

On the other hand,  men who voted for Harris are much less likely than Trump men to view getting married and having children as important.

Source: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/poll-gen-zs-gender-divide-reaches-politics-views-marriage-children-suc-rcna229255

This should give anyone pause who believes that we are going to see the total fertility rate increasing in the United States anytime soon.

It is not going to be easy to see population growth if those that we rely on to have babies do not see much value in having children,

Based on this survey data. the UN report might be overly optimistic on the future population trends in the United States.

The good news for Republicans is that Democrats may become extinct when this is their belief system.

All of the above also raises the question as to how China, Russia, Japan and Europe can maintain their economic and/or military power over the next 75 years in the face of this population collapse?

It also suggests that India might be the country most likely to move into a stronger position on both dimensions in the coming years.

Pakistan is another country that could be on the rise in that its population is predicted to double by 2100.

Here is how the UN sees the population rankings of the world's largest countries changing between 2024, 2054 and 2100.

What this means to the world order over the next 75 years is yet to be determined.

However, many of the cards that will determine what destiny is in store for us have already been dealt.

And demography really is destiny.

On The Road To A Real Oligarchy

It used to said there was little difference between the two major political parties in the United States.

There was a lot of common ground on basic issues such as law and order, defense, immigration and economic policy.

If JFK was running for political office today you might think he was a Republican.

For example, he advocated for tax cuts and was famous for his quote,

"A rising tide lifts all boats".

He advocated that the tax rate on individual taxpayers be reduced as well as the corporate income tax rate.

He understood that everyone benefited from capitalism when the capitalists made money.

We are a long way from that view today.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wore a custom designer dress to the Met Gala in 2021 with her sentiments.

Source: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/aoc-broke-house-rules-attend-ritzy-met-gala-tax-rich-dress-ordered-pay

More recently, AOC and Bernie Sanders have been touring the country on a "Fighting Oligarchy" Tour.

Source: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/aoc-broke-house-rules-attend-ritzy-met-gala-tax-rich-dress-ordered-pay

They are socialists through and through.

What is an oligarchy?

What are the most common examples of oligarchies in the world today?

Russia.

China. 

Venezuela.

North Korea.

They all are fundamentally based on socialist or communist principles.

You might also extend that definition to include a monarchy such as Saudi Arabia today or the monarchies in years past of many European nations where the wealth and power were held by a select few.

That is not even close to the case in the United States today.

The same can be said for the exercise of political power.

People in the United States have more direct political power than anywhere else in the world.

The United States Constitution establishes a framework that provided the people the ultimate power to determine the government they want.

The U.S. House of Representatives can be totally turned over every two years if the voters desire.

The Presidency is on a four year cycle.

The entire U.S. Senate can be turned over within six years if the people want to exercise that degree of control.

Zohran Mamdani, the socialist-communist Democrat candidate for Mayor of New York City, has now come on the scene with even more radical ideas than Bernie or AOC.

His brand of politics borders on communism ideals.

He wants government run grocery stores.

He wants free childcare and government-paid mass transit.

He wants to freeze rents and override private property rights.

He believes billionaires should not be allowed to exist.

He is of the view that capitalism is theft.

If the United States is an oligarchy how could a 33-year like Mamdani come out of nowhere and defeat New York political royalty like Andrew Cuomo in the primary?

Ot a bartender from New York City become the darling of the Democrat party in several short years?

We have come a long way from the days of JFK.

That divide is really apparent when you look at how different the views are of Democrats and Republicans regarding capitalism and socialism.

According to a recent Gallup poll, 74% of Republicans have a positive image of capitalism.

Only 42% of Democrats do.

On the other hand, 66% of Democrats have a positive view of socialism while only 14% of Republicans do.

Could there be a much larger divide?

Considering the economic views of Democrat voters, we are undoubtedly going to see more candidates like Bernie, AOC and Mandami espousing ever more radical socialist views.

That is simply because Democrat candidates will cater to what they believe Democrat voters want.

And Democrats are clearly saying they want more socialism and less capitalism.

The Democrats just need to be careful what they wish for.

At the end of this road is an actual OLIGARCHY.

And the powerful few will not be the capitalists.

You can count on that.

Billionaires--Tax Them or Bless Them?

We hear a lot about billionaires these days.

The Democrats seem to believe that if we could just get billionaires to pay their fair share of taxes there would not be any problems in the world.

Of course, they seem to ignore the fact that most of these billionaires have built businesses that have created jobs for millions of workers which allows them to put food on the table for their families and to pay billions and billions in taxes on the wages they earn.

For example, the latest estimate by Grok is that 130,000-140,000 people are employed in the companies that make up the bulk of Elon Musk's wealth---Tesla, SpaceX, Twitter, Neuralink, The Boring Company and xAI.

These billionaires have also made a lot of people financially comfortable with investments in their companies or the products they have enjoyed because of it.

For example, Jeff Bezos who founded Amazon, states that he holds $200 billion of Amazon stock but the company is valued at $2.3 trillion.

“Somebody needs to make a list where they rank people by how much wealth they’ve created for other people,” suggested Bezos, “instead of the Forbes list that ranks you by your own wealth.”

“Then I’ve created something like $2.1 trillion in wealth for other people. That should put me pretty high on some kind of list—and that’s a better list,” Bezos explained.

Forbes recently did a list of the richest people in the world as of March, 2025.

Here is a list of the top 15.

13 of the 15 reside in the United States led by Elon Musk. Bezos is third behind Mark Zuckerberg.

Source: https://www.forbes.com/billionaires/

Since this list was produced in March Larry Ellison has moved up from #4 to #2 due to a surge in the stock price of Oracle of which Ellison is a major shareholder. 

Ellison is now worth $368 billion but he still trails Musk who has increased his net worth to $478 billion thanks to increases in Tesla’s stock price.

There are just over 3,000 billionaires in a world out of a population of 8 billion people,

Forbes puts Donald Trump's net worth at $5.1 billion as of March, 2025.

Trump's net worth decreased in his first term from $4.5 billion right before he took office to $2.1 billion in 2020.

This was largely due to the enormous negative impact on his business brands when he became President in 2017. 

Most Presidents get wealthy after they take office (e.g. Ford, Clinton, Obama, G.W.Bush, Biden etc).

Trump got much poorer despite Democrat claims that he only ran for office to enrich himself.

Winning a second term after all that he went through, Trump has enjoyed a rebound in the value of his business empire as his brands have become more acceptable.

The net worth history of Trump as calculated by Forbes tells the tale.

Redemption at the ballot box has been very sweet on several dimensions for Donald Trump.

Donald Trump Wealth History
Source: https://www.forbes.com/profile/donald-trump/?list=billionaires

However, Trump only ranks #700 on the Forbes list for American billionaires.

To put Trump's business empire and net worth in perspective, he would be much wealthier if he had opened restaurants selling chicken instead of investing in real estate properties.

Todd Graves, who founded Raising Canes which serves chicken strips, has a net worth ($10 billion) twice that of Trump.

Todd Graves
Twice the wealth of Donald Trump
Credit: @ToddGraves on X

That is nothing compared to the Cathy family that founded Chick-fil-A. The three children of Truett Cathy who started the chicken sandwich chain are worth a combined $34 billion according to Forbes.

Where else is that possible but in the United States of America?

BrilliantMaps.com took the information from the 2024 list earlier this year and developed some wonderful maps to put the billionaire class in better context.

The map data does not match the 2025 Forbes updates but it is useful to put the billionaire subject in better perspective.

This is a map of where the billionaires in the United States resided in 2024.

California had 194 in 2024. New York was home to 132 and Florida had 104.

Alaska, Alabama, Delaware and West Virginia did not have a single billionaire.

On a per capita basis, Wyoming actually leads in the number of billionaires. 

There are over 10 billionaires per one million people in Wyoming. Of course, Wyoming only has a population of 600,000. It has 6 in total.

New York is next best at 6.64 per million. 

The total wealth of all those U.S. billionaires in 2024 was $5.8 trillion.

This reality is where taxing the billionaires to solve our fiscal issues goes off the rails quickly.

You can confiscate ALL OF THE WEALTH of America's billionaires and it would be short of the almost $7 trillion the federal government will spend just this year.

Stated another way, if the total net worth of billionaires in the U.S. was confiscated it would only cover the current annual federal deficit of close to $2 trillion for less than three years.

Of course, after you take it all, you then have no income to tax in the future from these billionaires and the wealth is also all consumed and gone. 

Where do you go next for the money you need?

It also goes without saying that when you confiscate wealth or implement onerous tax rates on the ultra-wealthy you also destroy any incentive for those people to earn and create more in the future.

The free enterprise system in the United States is a big reason why it leads the rest of the world in the number of billionaires.

The money has also come from a wide range of industries. From chicken restaurants to AI and everything in between.

This map shows billionaires by country around the world.

In 2024 Europe was home to 695 Billionaires with a combined net worth of $3.4 Trillion USD..

In contrast, the US was home to 840 Billionaires with a combined net worth of $5.8 Trillion USD.

It may not be a popular view but the reality is that billionaires provide the juice that makes the world work.

By and large, these are the people who have provided the inventions and innovations that have moved humanity forward around the world.

They may be a popular target for politicians who want to further their own careers.

However, the long term risk to society by targeting their wealth is many times greater than any short term gains.

RIP Charlie Kirk

The assassination of Charlie Kirk last week was shocking.

Even more shocking were the reactions of many on the Left that celebrated his death.

Kirk’s entire career was dedicated to engaging others in honest debate and dialogue.

He was willing to share and defend his views on abortion, immigration, gun control, transgenderism, religion and many other controversial topics rationally and factually.

I understand that many did not share his views.

However, what possesses someone to take joy in the killing of a man over his opinions?

Charlie had a unique ability to frame his arguments and work to influence rather than incite those who he engaged with.

There is little doubt in my mind that Kirk would have been a Presidential candidate at some point in the future. He had the smarts, he had the communication skills and the charisma to be a force in politics for years to come. 

It was all cut short at the age of 31.

Few have reached such a level of influence at such a young age that anyone would have even thought that it was necessary that he be silenced.

Abraham Lincoln was 56 years old when he was killed.

John F. Kennedy was 46.

Robert F. Kennedy was 42.

Martin Luther King, Jr was 39.

I lived through the assassinations of both Kennedys and Dr, King. 

There was almost universal shock and anger at their deaths.

Yes, we did not have social media but I do not remember anyone who was celebrating their deaths and dancing on their graves like we have seen in the last few days.

Or considering the assailant a hero.

It is both shocking and stomach turning to see the number of college professors, teachers, nurses, doctors, pilots and other people that we interact with on a daily basis celebrating the killing of another human being.

Consider for a moment that if the killing of Charlie Kirk can elicit this horrific behavior what would we have seen if that bullet in Butler, Pennsylvania had been a couple centimeters to the right?

Do we have to hold our breath every second that Donald Trump serves his term so as to avoid this reprehensible behavior repeating itself a thousand-fold?

There is true evil among us.

However, it was not Charlie Kirk and it is not Donald J. Trump.

Sadly, Charlie Kirk saw it all unfolding right before his eyes back in April in this post on X.

Think as well as to what the assassination of Charlie Kirk has done to President Trump.

Trump was close to Kirk. 

Consider that as well as the fact that Trump has seen the raw footage of the reality of what a bullet could have done to him in Butler. And the hatred that has followed in the aftermath.

If you were Trump why would you sit back and just continue to take the hatred?

How could he not be justified in doubling down in calling out the hateful and harmful rhetoric of the Left?

Posted below is the reaction that @RobertMSterling had on X to not only the killing of Charlie Kirk but of the cold-blooded murder of 23 year old Ukranian immigrant Iryna Zarutska at the hands of a man who had at least 14 incidents with the criminal justice system since 2007.

It is worth the read and has received a of lot of likes from many high profile names on X.

Sterling suggests it is well past time for Democrats to clean up their house and police their own.

It remains to be seen whether these incidents will be the catalyst for even more voters abandoning the Democrat party as Sterling suggests.

However, I have no doubt his sentiments will be shared by many. 

Rest in peace, Charlie Kirk.

@RobertMSterlingon X

(Warning: long rant) My liberal friends are completely oblivious about how radicalizing the last week has been for tens of millions of normal Americans. Zero clue. I’m not talking about people who are “online”; I mean regular, everyday Americans. “Normies.” People who scroll through Facebook posts and Instagram reels from the Dutch Bros drive thru line. Political moderates who have water cooler chats about Mahomes touchdowns and Bon Jovi concerts, not Twitter threads or Rachel Maddow monologues. Millions of them. Tens of millions. They’re logging on, they’re engaging, and they’re furious. And I’ll be candid: They blame you guys. They blame the left. Regardless of whether you believe it to be justified, they think you’re the bad guys here. And they are reacting accordingly. I can already hear some of you racing toward the comments to start screeching in moral indignation, so I’m going to be blunt: Shut up and listen to what I’m telling you. Your movement will lose any semblance of relevance if you don’t develop some small measure of self-awareness, and—absent someone force-feeding you bitter medicine—you guys collectively lack the humility to do this on your own. Here are the facts: Fact 1. Tens of millions of Americans started the week seeing a 23-year-old blonde woman—a young woman in whom virtually every parent watching pictured their own daughter—stabbed in the neck by a career criminal. These people then found out the murderer had been released from jail 14 times over. Fact 2. Two days later, tens of millions of Americans watched a video of Charlie Kirk get murdered speaking to college students. Millions of these people knew who Charlie was; millions of them didn’t. Upon seeing the video, however, these normal Americans from across the land and across the political spectrum agreed that he was the victim of a terrible, fundamentally unjustifiable crime, and their hearts broke in sympathy for his family. Good people who had never even heard the name Charlie Kirk before wept. Fact 3. Immediately after seeing the footage of a peaceful young man get shot in the neck, these same people logged onto Facebook and Instagram (remember, we are talking about regular Americans, not perpetually online Twitter or Bluesky users) and saw some of their local nurses, school teachers, college administrators, and retail workers celebrating this horrific crime. Not just defending it, but cheering it. These are all facts. You may not like the implications of these facts, and we can certainly debate the underlying causes thereof, but, indisputably, they are nevertheless factual statements. Here’s what it means for you, the Democrats reading this: These normal, middle-of-the-road, non-political citizens just become politically active. They realized that politics cares about them, even if they don’t particularly care about politics. After watching Iryna Zarutska and Charlie Kirk both bleed out from the neck, they think their lives and the physical safety of their families—the bedrock of human society, the foundation of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs—depend on political activation, whether they desire it or not. These people are now sprinting—not jogging, not walking, but racing—to the right. Because they blame you guys for everything that just happened. When they see footage of Decarlos Brown stabbing a Ukrainian refugee to death, they don’t see just one demon-possessed man. They picture every university administrator, HR bureaucrat, and DEI apparatchik that ever lectured them about systemic racism, the “carceral state,” or the need to release violent crime suspects without bail in the name of social justice. They then think back to conversations they’ve had with their cop friends—their buddy from high school who quit the force after getting tired of being called a racist, their friend at the local YMCA who vents about having to release career criminals because Soros-funded prosecutors aren’t willing to file charges—and they realize everything the left has told them over the last five years has been utter bullshit. And they blame you. Because, even if you count yourself as a moderate Democrat, your party supported the district attorneys, city council members, and mayors that let fictitious concerns about mental health and racial justice supersede very real concerns for their family’s safety. When these Americans see blood erupt from the side of Charlie Kirk’s neck, they don’t see just a martyred political activist. They think of every extreme leftist they’ve ever met who (1) calls anyone to the right of Hillary Clinton a fascist and (2) constantly jokes—“jokes”—about punching Nazis and “bashing the fash.” They realize that there really do exist people who wish to see them dead for their moderately conservative political beliefs, their Christian faith, and even the color of their skin. They ask themselves if the violence visited upon Charlie might one day show up on their own doorstep. And they blame you. Because, even if you’re just a center-of-the-road liberal, you lacked the courage to police your own ranks. You let modern-day Maoist red guards run loose across every facet of society, and what started with social-media struggle sessions has now turned to 30-06 bullet holes. When these Americans log onto social media and see their neighbors justifying, celebrating, glorifying murder, they realize that some who walk among them are soulless ghouls at best, literally demon-possessed at worst. These people—whether they faithfully attend church every Sunday or only attend with relatives once a year, on Christmas Eve—start talking about things like spiritual warfare. They implicitly understand that no normal human casually celebrates the mortal demise of a peaceful person. And they blame you. Because, even if you condemned Charlie Kirk’s murder, they probably haven’t seen you condemn those in your own movement who cheered it on. They view you as complicit in allowing heartless fellow travelers to celebrate death, and it repulses them. For all of these situations, what has your response been? Nothing but bullshit. In response to Iryna Zarutska bleeding out on the floor of a train, you post bullshit statistics about reductions in reported crime, when everyone who’s ever been to a major urban center in the last decade knows that actual crime has skyrocketed, only for victims not to waste their time reporting it to cops that don’t have the manpower to respond and prosecutors that seek to downgrade as many felonies as possible to misdemeanor citations. In response to a 31-year-old man taking a bullet to the neck in front of his family, you post nothing but bullshit whataboutism. > “What about January 6th?” (Honest answer: After you let Liz Cheney spend two years operating a star chamber in the House, combined with countless other failed attempts at “lawfare” against Trump, no one cares anymore.) > “What about Mike Lee making a dumb joke on Twitter about some guy in a mask in Minnesota?” (No one outside of Utah, DC, or Twitter knows who Mike Lee even is.) > “What about Paul Pelosi?” (That’s not comparable to Charlie Kirk getting shot, and we all know it. And, again, Paul who?) > “What about regulations on assault rifles?” (That’s not going to get you very far when one of these killers used a knife and the other one used a common hunting rifle.) In response to teachers, healthcare workers, and thousands of other liberals cheering on Charlie’s murder, it’s nothing but more bullshit and misdirection. > “It’s not THAT many people celebrating!” (Yes, it is. Everyone has seen it on their Facebook and Instagram feeds.) > “I thought you guys didn’t support cancel culture.” (We don’t cancel people over their opinions; we’re more than happy to see people lose their jobs—especially their taxpayer-funded jobs—for actively cheering on murder, though. If you can’t see the difference, that’s your own shortcoming.) All bullshit. Not even smart bullshit, but stale, mid-grade, low-IQ bullshit. Ordinary Americans see right through it, and they don’t like how it smells. You probably don’t like hearing this. But you need to hear it. Because I’m right, and, as you reflect on this, you know I’m right. The ranks of my political movement gained millions of righteously angry new members this week. We have a mandate to ensure these crimes never happen again, and that’s exactly what we are now going to do. If you want to keep a seat at the table as we do so, you’d better clean house and start policing your own.