King: Demographics Trending Against GOP Agenda

Bill King, Chron, February 15, 2012

Memo to Republicans: There are not enough old, angry white people to win a national election.

Apparently Republicans are unaware of a new science called demographics that has been developed over the last several decades. {snip}


The modest inroads the Republicans had made with African-Americans in the Bush years have pretty much dissolved with their relentless personal attacks on President Obama. Latinos, who Bush had very effectively wooed, are running for the Democratic hills and away from the vitriolic Republican anti-immigration rhetoric. And the roughly 2.5 million Muslims in the U.S., who had historically heavily supported the Republican Party, are now leaning towards the Democrats because of the demonization of their faith by many Republican candidates.

Here is the problem if you are trying to win a national election. As of the 2010 census, only 63 percent of the U.S. population is white. If you have written off 37 percent of the population, you have to get nearly 80 percent of the white vote to win an election. The reality is not quite that bad because whites tend to vote in much higher percentages than other groups.


In fact, the only group on which Republicans can reliably count on are older white voters. The polling does show that this group is highly agitated and motivated, meaning they are more likely to show up to vote or participate in a caucus.

But regardless of how motivated they are, there are simply not enough of them to win. {snip}

But here is the other thing the demographics show. Based on the trends, there is virtually no chance Republicans, with their current agenda, will ever be competitive in a national election again.

Whites, who already are a minority in four states, will lose their majority status in the nation by around 2040. During that same time the percentage of Americans who are Latino or Asian will nearly double. With a birthrate too low to maintain our population, virtually all of our future population growth will come from immigration. {snip}


Topics: , ,

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • Anonymous

    He’s right, sort of .  Now the GOP can lose its huge share of the largest voting bloc in the US, the White vote, by pandering to minorities.  But this hasn’t worked.  Or, and this is just as logical as (actually more logical than) that of King’s:

    End all immigration.  Deport the illegals here through selective deportation and efficient enforcement of employment law.  End welfare benefits to the illegal, and to the lazy American that doesn’t work (and causes the “need” for immigrant labor in the first place).  This will cause the demographics to shift back toward the GOP’s natural voting bloc, the White vote, all the while solving the social problems brought about by immigration and welfare dependency. 

  • The modest inroads the Republicans had made with African-Americans in
    the Bush years have pretty much dissolved with their relentless personal
    attacks on President Obama.

    Bush made no inroads among blacks.  Bush’s approval rating among blacks was about the same as David Duke’s.

    Latinos, who Bush had very effectively wooed

    Another lie.  The only way they can get away with this is that Cubans in Florida and some Hispanics in Texas voted Bush fairly well in 2004, but that’s it.

    And the roughly 2.5 million Muslims in the U.S., who had historically heavily supported the Republican Party,

    Another distortion.  Muslims vote Democrat at about the same proportion as do Hispanics.

    Here is the problem if you are trying to win a national election. As of
    the 2010 census, only 63 percent of the U.S. population is white. If you
    have written off 37 percent of the population, you have to get nearly
    80 percent of the white vote to win an election.

    Wrong.  You can probably win a Presidential election this year with about 58% of the white vote.  And remember, Presidential elections are essentially 51 separate elections, so if you break it down state by state, you can get less than that in most of the crucial swing states.  If absolutely zero whites in California vote Republican, it won’t matter anyway because Obama will win California anyway.

  • Anonymous

    What crap even for mainstream journalism!  Republicans are “demonizing” the faith of Muslims?  No, actually, the GOP, at least the small portion with real guts, is simply pointing out the consequences of that faith.  Demons are people who crash jets into tall buildings killing lots of people or who applaud them from afar.  Such people SHOULD be demonized.  What they shouldn’t be is granted admission to the U.S. 

  • Anonymous

    “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy.”

    The end is nigh and fast approaching.

    • Anonymous

      This has been attributed to Alexander Fraser Tytler, Lord Woodhouselee. If he said it, he said it over two hundred years ago. Since then democracy has spread to most of the countries in the world. 

  • Anonymous

    In fact, the only group on which Republicans can reliably count on are older white voters.                           
    –  Bill King, Chron, February 15, 2012            

    Even these will start voting Democratic if Republican politicians get serious about cutting government spending. They cannot do that without making major reductions in Social Security and Medicare.

  • Another article celebrating
    the demise of White America via multiculturalism and diversity. The reason why
    Whites are only 63% of the population, in a country founded by and for White
    Americans, is the 1965 Immigration Act and rampant illegal invasion from Mexico;
    which this government refuses to stop.

    Throw in the deformation of
    the 14th Amendment, as well as our government subsidizing millions of anchor
    babies and you can see why we have been reduced from 85% of the population, to
    63%, in a period of just 45 years.

  • ‘Memo to Republicans: There are not enough old, angry white people to win a national election.”

    For now they are just taunting us, grinding us down.  Soon, very soon, they will be tired of this game, grow impatient and really do the damage.  Genocide is not far from what they will be capable.  Haven’t you stared into those faces and seen the hatred, the just wait until we take over smirk?  They know how to do it, the Ukraine in 1920s, South Africa since the 80s and now, Eric Holder’s we people and you are cowards.  Just now it is flash mobs or a white child or old person to beat and the approaching time that the 10000 white women to rape will not be satisfying enough.  Maybe we wake up in time and cast out the illegal invasion and we really put the banksters in jail and we declare white women off limits for rape or we march right around 180 degrees and go back to America or maybe not.

  • Anonymous

    The fact is this:
    The Republicans were never the ‘white party’ are not the white party and never will be the white party.
    Lest we forget it was Reagan who brought in the 1986 ‘amnesty’, the coup de grace for white America.It was Nixon who enshrined so-called ‘affirmative action’ (actually institutionalized 3rd class citizenship for White males) into law.It was Bush for tried, tried and tried again to sneak in yet another ‘amnesty’.
    The Republicans played a duplicitous game, playing both sides of the fence at the same time, but always but always dumping on and selling out their White voting base whenever the opportunity availed.
     Now they pay the price for their cynicism and deceit, by trying to appeal to everyone, they appeal to no one.

  • Anonymous

    Great Britain, the United States, Canada, France, Australia, the Scandinavian countries, a few others. Once democracy lasts for two or three generations it seems pretty stable. 

  • Anonymous

    This is the same sort of argument that Tim Wise spewed in 2010 when he realized that Obama’s Glorious Revolution was not permanent – that old whites are the only one’s still voting for Republicans, and once they die off the US will finally become a post-racial paradise. This is pure junk.

    The writer obviously didn’t even bother to check his own assertions against reality.  (Either that or he knows exactly what he’s doing, trying to mislead Republicans into mass suicide.)

    According to the Pew Research Center, whites aged 18-29 are now more likely to vote Republican than whites 65+ (contra what the above journalist asserts). And those whites most likely to vote Republican are those in the age group 30-49 (those paying for welfare programs abused by nonwhites).  Source: 

    • Nonetheless, there will
      not be enough of those Whites in the 18-29 age demographic to offset the
      massive influx of third-world browns (both legal and illegal) they will have to
      contend with. Whites continue to be reduced to minority status through
      dwindling numbers and the third-world invasion. Currently at 63% of the
      population, the number of Whites of European ancestry continues to decline. In
      addition, within that 63%, we have self-hating Whites, which have aligned with
      the diversity mongers intent on reducing us even further.

      This is why those who
      advocate on behalf of hispanc illegal invaders continue to boast about being
      the majority one day. They know what this will mean for Whites in this country
      and they are not shy about speaking about it. With a government refusing to
      stop this invasion, while subsidizing the reckless breeding habits of criminal
      invaders,( as well as bestowing US citizenship to their spawn); it’s only a
      matter of time until we reach sub-replacement levels in respect to White
      demographics in this country.

      • KevinPhillipsBong

        Oh I agree. I guess my point is that the author of this article and others see younger whites as good liberals (mostly) and older whites as backwards conservatives who only think bigoted, reactionary thoughts because they are part of some by-gone age of ignorance. And once these old whites die off, then all races will live together in peace. These leftists are wrong.  Their hoped-for era of young white Democrat realignment will not come, and the patience of these liberals is wearing thin. See Tim Wise’s 2010 diatribe.

  • Anonymous

    Federal AFDC Expenditures as Compared to Federal Spending in Other Areas (1993)
    Agency $ billions
    AFDC 12
    Medicaid 76
    Medicare 131
    Defense 281
    Social Security 305


    It is impossible to cut government spending without cutting or eliminating programs the vast majority of the electorate, including most Republicans, will oppose. Also, Social Security and Medicare are not only for whites. They are for everyone.

  • Anonymous

    If cutting government spending will help the economy, whose economy will it help? Government spending was cut in 1937 and 1945. Both times unemployment went up.

    • IanJMacDonald

      Ah yes, I remember the Great Depression of 1946 – NOT. You know why? Because it didn’t happen.  During WWII Keynsians fretted that the end of the war and consequent decrease in government spending would put the economy back into a depression.  It didn’t happen that way.  The economy boomed.  Read Thomas Woods on this.

  • It may be too late now. Even if a candidate wins 75% of the White population, it  only amounts to 47% of the White vote. That’s not enough to win a national election. But since electorial votes, are what counts,  we need only to look at states such as California, Texas and Florida to see our future. Texas and California are being colonized by Mexico, which cannot bode well for the GOP.
     This is why the GOP continues to pander to hispanics and refuses to come out and  demand our immigration laws be enforced. Any candidate who does is quickly cast aside as  “far-right and out of touch.” 

  • It may be too late now. Even if a candidate wins 75% of the White population, it only amounts to 47% of the White vote. That’s not enough to win a national election. But since electorial votes are what counts, we need only to look at states such as California, Texas and Florida to see our future. Texas and California are being colonized by Mexico, which cannot bode well for the GOP. 
    This is why the GOP continues to pander to hispanics and refuses to come out and demand our immigration laws be enforced. Any candidate who dares to me such assertions, is quickly cast aside as “far-right and out of touch.”     

  • Anon

     I keep on hearing about big business wanting illegal immigration to have access to cheap labor.

    I don’t believe this at all.

    That may have been true 10 or 20 years ago but it is not true now.  All the cheap labor needs are being automated out of existence, and big business owners should now be frightened about how that cheap labor will spend its days when it has nothing productive to do.  Within ten years most agricultural work will be automated.  Robots will be able to pick strawberries faster and cheaper than illegal aliens.

    Big business today wants skilled labor.  There’s a chronic shortage not of strawberry-pickers but of web server designers, electrical engineers, and so on.

  • Republicans want cheap labor. That’s why. It’s why slaves were imported in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries. It was a critical factor in the downfall of South Africa’s white government.  It isn’t just lefties who are responsible for this mess.

  • charles

    I am a black republican.  I am proud to be a black republican.  The problem in my opinion is that many white republicans refuse to campaign for the black vote.  White politicians are wrong to lump all blacks into the same circle.  I grew up poor and I have worked my way into the middle class.  I am conservative on foreign events and a moderate on liberal programs.  I feel insulted when whites stereotype all blacks as the same; we’re not!  I am black but I live and think like a European.  I make no apologies for my life.  I love country music and I love listening to Bruce Springstein.  I am married to a black woman.  I feel that whites are mistaken if they think that all blacks are opposed to immigration or that we want to see the country sold to the Chinese.  I feel blessed to be an American; my ancestors endured slavery so that I could live a better life.  I will fight to the death for my country.  Blessed to be in Ameriac; I could be living in poverty in Africa right now!!!!  signed Charles

    • Oh yes, I agree.  The Republicans are shooting themselves in the foot.  If they try hard enough, they might be able to rocket all the way up to 2% of the black vote.  And don’t pay attention to what’s behind the curtains, the masses of white voters that they’ll lose while pandering to black voters.  But, at least the Republican Party won’t be racist, (or victorious).

      • MikeofAges

         They all count. George Bush was reelected in 2004 because his black vote in Ohio was six points ahead of the national trend. Two points would have been enough to take Ohio out of the “another Florida” category. If the Republican can get two percent more of the black vote and three percent more of the Hispanic than they got in 2008, it will turn the election. Not that it seems to  make a huge difference most of the time. The political system has an awful lot of intertia.

        • Define ‘six points ahead of the national trend.’  I can ill believe that 6% of a constituency that is probably no more than 10% of the Ohio body politic really makes a big difference.  10% times 6% is is 0.6%.  Bush > Kerry 2.11% in OH/’04.  2.11 minus 0.6 is 1.51, so Bush still wins. 

          I tend to think what you mean is that a black in Ohio was 6% more likely than a black nationally to vote Bush in 2004, which is like taking a bucket of water from Lake Erie in the greater scheme of things.

          • MikeofAges

             According to reports, Bush in 2004 got 16 percent of the black vote in Ohio, compared to 10 percent nationally. Again, according to reports, the black vote in Ohio was 550,000. Bush’s margin in Ohio was 120,000 votes. Okay, if you switched 33,000 black votes to Kerry, that makes the margin 54,000 votes. Unless your goal is to make close elections closer, perhaps even to lose them, you should value whatever minority votes you can get.

            My point is, turnarounds of even two or three percent within a defined voting bloc can make a difference, and you can achieve that without compromising your principles. American elections usually are very close. In 2008, turning around less than 500,000 votes in seven states would have elected John McCain.

            In the watershed election of 1968, a change of 135,000 votes in eight states would have elected Humphrey instead of Nixon. Considering that Nixon was the real “godfather” of the affirmative action system, we might have been better off if HHH had been elected. At least he was an old-fashioned labor-oriented warhorse.

          • MikeofAges:

            I will sooner sprinkle magic fairy dust on my head (will have to borrow some from Unamusement Park) then jump out of an airplane and expect to fly like Peter Pan, before I ever believe that George W. Bush got one in six black voters in Ohio and one in ten nationally in 2004.

            We’re talking about a President who in his final half year in office had an approval rating from blacks that was so low that any positive number was basically statistical noise level.  Or the 1% that did approve of him probably thought the pollster was asking about Reggie Bush and not George Bush.

            I suspect the source you used that said 10%/16% merely analyzed precinct by precinct, forgetting that not everyone who lives in a black precinct is black.

            Even if those figures are true for blacks and blacks alone, it should be noted that subtracting from 100%, 90% nationally and 84% in Ohio didn’t vote for him.  And to get to 10/16, Bush had to pander and grovel on top of pandering and groveling, the worst example was setting off the subprime mortgage crisis with No Down Payment mortgages explicitly to get more blacks and Hispanics to buy houses.  And that pandering cost Bush far many more white votes than the black votes he supposedly gained.

            As far as 1968, the real watershed would have been a few ten thousands of votes changing from Nixon to Wallace in the two Carolinas.  Then nobody would have gotten to 270, meaning the election gets thrown to the House, then both Nixon and HHH would have been begging Wallace for his delegates in exchange for one thing or another.  But what prevented it?  Strom Thurmond, who practically begged North and South Carolinians to vote for Nixon because we could trust him.  That’s the part about Strom Thurmond’s life that is almost lost, that in spite of his “segregationist” past, by 1964, when he switched parties, he quickly became absorbed into the Republican establishment.

          • MikeofAges

            The numbers are good. I checked them before I posted.

            Repeat. Small changes within defined voting blocs can make a big difference. Of course, the biggest defined voting bloc the Republicans should be getting ahead with but aren’t is Catholic ethnics – Irish, Italian, Polish. The Democrats fear losing these voters more than anybody. How they keep them is anyone’s guess – the race card, tradition, union membership, residence in big cities, belief that the Republican party is a Protestant party.

            The Democrats also rightly fear any slippage in the minority vote. A decline in the black vote (won’t happen this year) below the low 90s and a decline in the Hispanic vote into the low 60s would be a disaster for them.

            Interesting point about 1968. I wonder what would have happened if no one had won an EC majority, would have gone to the House I imagine unless Nixon was within a handful of votes. But the two Carolinas would not have been enough to change it. Nixon got 301, Humphrey 191, Wallace 46.

            Check your parachute. The “fairy dust’ thing doesn’t work, as far as I know.

          • Again, I don’t doubt the numbers are good, or any other facts you just stated.  All I’m saying that whoever gathered the stats had a faulty methodology.

            I looked it up, and you’re also right:  NC/SC for Wallace would have taken Nixon down to 280, still enough to win.  It would have taken either TN or FL flipping to Wallace to throw the election to the House.

            If the election were thrown to the House, then members of the House would have voted for the next President.  While there were more Democrats than Republicans those days, the Southern Democrats would have voted Wallace, the non-Southern Democrats HHH, and most Republicans Nixon.  Then the horse trading would have began for someone to get a majority.

  • Guest

    The GOP will soon go the way of the whigs, the anti masons  and the know nothings.  They have nothing to offer to any demographic.  The hispanics, blacks and asians hate them.  The wealthiest people in the country, Jews own the Democrats.

    I voted for Ronald Reagan because like every other working class White I hoped he would end affirmative action.  He did not.  His administration made it worse.  I am old enough to remember when merit and objectively scored written exams were the main criteria for hiring.  I remember when I applied for a department store sales clerk job one summer when I was in college.  I passed the clerk’s exam.  As soon as it was scored they gave me a buyer’s management trainee exam which I also passed.
    Right then and there I was offered a management trainee job.

    But since 1970 the sole criteria for hiring is to be some sort of non White no matter how unqualified.
    There are thousands of goverment employees who have BA and MA degrees who cannot read at middle school level. 

    It was the Nixon, not the Johnson administration that really created and enforced the no Whites need apply laws.

    Many Whites will vote for whoever runs against Obama.  I probably will.  But the Republicans have betrayed the only people who have ever voted for them except for the pre 1965 southern blacks.

    Let them die away like the whigs.

    Then we will still be officially a Republic with voting rights for all citizens, but we will be a one party country like the rest of the dictatorships around the world.

  • Demographics? More likely vote buying is the liberal’s weapon of choice.

  • Well that still won’t do the trick. As we speak, non whites are gaining in power and numbers. And please do not make the mistake to assume that all non-white groups are as dumb as your inner city ghetto blacks. They are equally as smart ( if not more) and determined and in many cases armed to the teeth. I believe, whites will become a persecuted minority whilst non whites will have all the power and money.

    • Anon: By the time whites even dream of getting their territory – they will be enslaved and will finally be exterminated. I believe the races who will dominate us will not be the incompetent blacks or Hispanics or even the Moslems ( Arabs) for that matter, despite fears of Eurabia and a pan-Islamic dominance. Despite their enormous birth rates and population growth, Moslems have a bottom-rung IQ and a fortitude worse than a coward. No, I believe the only ethnic groups ( based on the steady but sturdy trend) who will overtake and rule over the whites will be Asiatic groups like the East Asian Han Chinese and Asian Upper Caste Indians. 
      Despite some people here who for some odd rather errenous reason seem to dismiss Asians as sublime harmless nerds, beware, these people are quite intelligent, creative, determined and diabolic in nature – they have evolved and are quite savvy. They are far more smarter than they are often given credit for…if there is any group worth fearing and looking out for: it is clearly the Chinese and Indians. They are already taking over our Medicine, Industries, High end real estate property, Businesses, Science and Technology status-quo. Besides, these 2 civilizations along with Mesopotamia & Egypt were the forbearers of complex high level advanced human civilization, Mathematics, Science, town planning etc.

  • MikeofAges

     In discussing taxation, you have to consider that the tax system in America, outside of the income tax, is seriously regressive. In the state I live in, which has no income tax, the typical person working for wages and  making less that $25,000 a year pays 16 percent of their income in state and local taxes. The figure for persons making $200,000 a year is 4 percent. Although, 40 percent pay no federal income tax, that does not mean that all of them pay no taxes. I should know because I am in the 40 percent that does not pay federal income tax.

    What I think is needed is to make the tax system rational. That means making people  with high incomes pay their taxes without exception. Low and middle income people, even higher income people who do not have time to play the tax shelter game, pay. Former presidential candidate Jon Huntsman proposed a three-tier mandatory income tax peaking at 23 percent. That’s more or less the right idea. Someone making $10 million a year would have to pay $2.3 million. That’s an astounding amount of money if someone actually has to pay it. Much more than that would be confiscation.

    • Your particular state and locality is an outlier.  Most states have an income tax, and the rates are either flat or progressive.  Even in your particular circumstance, when you throw in the Federal income tax, then the total tax burden once again become progressive.  And as far as the shelter game, that only works for very few individuals (most of those politically connected) in the long term.

      • MikeofAges

         Exactly my point. The progressive income tax is the great equalizer in the tax system. But the percentage of high income earners who pay little or no federal income tax is considerable. I don’t remember the exact figure, but it impressed me as large.

        What troubles me is that the people who are working hard to earn their high income — business owners, practitioners, salaried managers, consultants, highly skilled workers and so on — likely pay the most taxes while people who receive unearned income have the time to bend all of their activities toward the goal of avoiding taxation.

        BTW, I have heard that lawyers do not have good record of avoiding taxes. You would think they would know how to do so, but the point is, successful attorneys don’t have the time to “play the tax game”, as I put it.

        Just keep in mind, low income people do face a tax system which is heavily regressive apart from the income tax.

  • MikeofAges

     More likely, the Northeast for Semites, Irish and Italians. The Southeast for blacks. The Southwest for Hispanics. The  Great Plains and Upper Mississippi Valley for whites of Northern  European descent. The Rockies for white “westerners”, the Northwest for (eventually) Asians or whoever can grab it. Maybe the NW eventually will become an annex of the SW. Or of polyglot Canada.

    This breakup scheme has its points. The NE will be able to focus on its attachment to the North Atlantic. Blacks who cannot “make it” in other regions will have a stronger incentive to return their ancestral North American homeland. Same for Hispanics and the SW. The big winner might be the region not mentioned, the Great Lakes. Freed from the excessive environmental regulations imposed on the region by the aesthetes and epicureans (i.e. quiche eaters) of both coasts, the Great Lakes region can return to its industrial roots. With its infinite supply of fresh water and a population disposed to skilled work and industrial employment, the Great Lakes region could again become the industrial powerhouse of the world.


    “The modest inroads the Republicans had made with African-Americans in the Bush years have pretty much dissolved with their relentless personal attacks on President Obama.”
    What?  Bush II never made any inroads with blacks, he did poorly among black voters even for a Republican.  Blacks especially hated “W” because he is a spoiled trust fund baby who had everything in life handed to him on a silver platter despite being totally incompetent at anything.  

  • MikeofAges

     This idea is another iteration of the “nations of North America” concept. It has more to do with who lives in these places already. Besides, what wrong with New England, the Northeast, the Great Lakes, the Upper Mississippi Valley, the Great Plains and the Rockies as a geopolitical base? Every traditional and paleoconservative geopolitical thinker equates cold climate with vigor. The effects of freeing the Great Lakes region from excessive environmental regulation could be stupendous. One thing that would happen if North America split up along these lines — the Chinese might succeed in turning San Diego, Long Beach and San Francisco Bay into Chinese strategic bases. None of this is going to happen. Not any time soon anyway.

  • Marc B.

    The writer is correct about the demographics but wrong about the republican candidates being anti-illegal immigration. It’s the republican VOTERS who are against the invasion, not the candidates. I would have voted for Bachmann on this single issue because everyone else was too open borders for my tastes. Ron Paul had the right position the last time he ran, but for whatever reason reverted back to being a libertarian utopoian on this issue for his 2012 run.

  • MikeofAges

    However you cut it we have our backs to the wall. This is true of all subdivisions the white American population, whether Anglo-Celtic Protestant, Appalachian,  Catholic ethnic, Jew, Slav, Nordic European or Mediterranean European. I can only imagine that newly arrived South Asians, whether Arab, Indian or anything else, will over time fall into the same trap even though their American-born children have been very successful here. The same may happen to East Asians.

    The myth of the American “melting pot” is that immigrants arrive, struggle, then go to the top and stay there. But they don’t stay there. The worst off people here often are the people who have been here the longest, including the oldest elements of the white population. The exception to this is the (largely WASP) hereditary upper middle class. The idea that if one provides their children with education, then their education will provide for them is at best a partial truth. Anyone who interferes with the ability of any population to provide hereditary arrangements, both assets and position, for its offspring is one the edge if you ask me.

    This, of course, is the great failure of almost everyone in America. If you are going to rely on education to provide, certainly you cannot tolerate attacks on you ability to secure education or your ability to turn your education into entry level employment, the opportunity to at least attempt a career of interest to you. But that is what has happened to whites in America. I can only imagine the same fate await others, as unlikely as that may look right now.

    The possibility of the United States breaking up is something that is part of the more remote future. Taking the northern tier of the present United States as a permanent white, European dominated enclave is better than ending up with nothing. One thing I agree with is that this cannot be contemplated without doing something to make sure that the major West Coast ports do not become Red Chinese geopolitical outposts and strategic bases. But keep in mind, the Maoist regime will not last forever. Even something as trivial as the sudden rise of NBA star Jeremy Lin as pan-Chinese cultural icon expose a chink in the Maoist armor.