There was an alleged June 19 “terrorist attack” at Finsbury Park in London that was allegedly perpetrated by a white man driving a van into a group of Muslims in London.
This is just too perfect, coming after several years of major attacks perpetrated by Muslims all over Europe. Thus now Muslims are running to the media to tell us how afraid they are.
Did you ever notice how most terror attackers get killed or badly injured? Yet this white guy didn’t have a scratch on him (see video link below). The van with which he allegedly ran down the Muslims didn’t have a scratch on it either, while normally we see clear indications of the incident.
How about the all-too-perfect story line that a Muslim imam (preacher) saved the white attacker from an angry Muslim mob? Do you really believe this? This is absurd. Go to 2:07 of this video. You see the police smiling like actors, wheeling away an “injured” Muslim on a gurney. After that you see the “attacker” being bundled into a police van with not a scratch on him, or any blood. And you see trucks and buses driving past the crime scene. Aren’t the streets normally cordoned off after such an incident? After all the police van was sure there…
The photos of this “attack” have none of the look of urgency that you would have if this attack were real. Click through the CNN photos. They all look staged. Look at the cops in these photos. They look like extras on a movie set.
If you don’t believe all this, then compare it with the hoax “hate crimes” that we saw over and over after Trump’s election, that were blamed on Trump supporters. If these “crimes” had not been exposed as frauds we would continue to believe that they were real. They were not, like the fake arson attack on the black church in Mississippi one week before the election, which was finally traced to a church member. Nikitas3.com labeled that a hoax the minute that I saw it.
On the other side we have seen real violent attacks by Trump haters against Trump supporters, like the shooting of congressman Scalise, along with 200 other incidents including three murders.
This American pattern would precisely fit the pattern of the staged Finsbury Park “terror attack” against Muslims versus real terrorism by Muslims against Europeans.
Look at how the media immediately called Finsbury Park a “terrorist attack” and identified the “white man” who perpetrated it, when they often spend days before calling a real terror attack a terror attack or identifying the perpetrator.
After Finsbury Park, there was an interview with a Muslim mother talking about being afraid for her child. She looked like an actor reading lines. There was not an ounce of passion in her voice. And we can expect the British and globalist media and politicians to milk this “attack” endlessly and point to it over and over as a frightening escalation of violence against “peaceful” Muslims that must be stopped while defending Muslims as “peaceful” people.
Now here is today’s editorial about ‘hybrid’ cars:
‘Hybrid’ Cars get Black Eye at 24 Hours of Le Mans
Nikitas3.com is a big fan of auto racing. My favorite race is the Indy 500 and a very close second is the 24 Hours of Le Mans, in western France, which is not a race but a spectacle and a modern marvel. Three drivers per team, generally doing stints of 2 to 4 hours, go from 3 (French time) on Saturday afternoon to 3 Sunday. They drive through the night flat out on an 8.45-mile circuit. It is a brutal test of endurance for both cars and drivers, and always at full speed.
This year’s race was exciting as always but two out of the six LMP1 “supercars” had to stop for major repairs because of problems with their “hybrid” power systems.
These ‘hybrid’ cars are being hyped in the passenger car market and have been hyped for 20 years since the Toyota Prius was introduced in 1997. Yet after decades on the market these “hybrid” cars are expensive to buy and thus need a subsidy; they are expensive to repair and can only be fixed by specialized people; and they have a whole extra power train system, which is one more thing to go wrong, as Le Mans proved. These cars also can electrically shock emergency crews trying to save injured passengers, while they save a small amount of energy at high cost and great complexity.
By the way, the Boeing 747 jetliner, which carries almost 600 passengers, is more fuel-efficient than a Toyota Prius. The mathematical proof is further down in this commentary.
“Hybrid” technology is another ‘green’ hoax, as is the electric car. It is time for governments to end all subsidies for both. If these cars are so great, as their cheerleaders say, then consumers should just buy them for full price. In other words, if you allegedly save so much money on gasoline with these “efficient” cars, then why do they have to be subsidized up to $7,500?
‘Hybrid’ cars, which have both a gasoline engine and electric motors, use advanced technology, while electric cars have been around for more than 100 years. They run only on electric power which they get from plugging into utility power.
The reason that we never have seen electric cars widely sold until recently is because they are inefficient and nobody was making or buying them.
Now the ‘greenies’ have rigged the tax system to get big subsidies for electric cars like the Tesla and the Chevy Volt. And so we have more electric cars on the road since we always get more of what the government subsidizes.
Unfortunately electric cars are grossly inefficient for one logical and fundamental reason – because they are “the wrong use” for electricity.
Electricity is a highly-refined resource. In other words, if you took the energy content in a gallon of gasoline and converted it into electricity, you would end up with a small amount of a more “refined” energy type (electricity) but at high cost and at the loss of much of the energy in the conversion process.
Imagine an electric car proportionally using two to three times as much energy per mile as an internal combustion car and you get the point.
That is why electricity should be conserved for applications like computers, light bulbs, refrigerators, water pumps, telephones, power tools, etc. for which there is no alternative. Electricity should not be squandered on cars which have today’s efficient and clean internal combustion engine to power them.
And while the “greenies” have told us that there are no emissions coming out of the tailpipe of electric cars, these electric cars are actually major polluters; the “emissions” or “pollution” for electric cars occur at the power plants that are fueled by coal or natural gas, which represents about 70% of US electricity production.
The electric car has other major drawbacks. The Chevy Volt has only a 50-mile driving range before it has to be re-charged over a period of 13 hours(!) That makes it largely useless except for small amounts of around-town driving.
So guess what Chevy did to extend the car’s range? They put a gasoline engine in the car… you know, like every other car on the road that is not a Volt.
The Tesla electric car has addressed the problem of limited range with a whopping 1,300 lb. battery that gives it 280 miles in range (while the whole Toyota Camry weighs about 3,200 lbs. including engine). Yet that battery is a huge energy waster in its own right; its 1,300 lbs. has to be hauled around every mile that the car travels. It is the weight of three regular auto engines. So the excessive weight of the battery itself is consuming much of the energy stored in the battery.
Only environmentalists could come up with such a self-defeating system…
Meanwhile the manufacture of these batteries is a highly polluting process, but environmentalists have turned a blind eye to that.
On the other hand the gasoline in a full tank of 15 gallons only weighs about 90 lbs. and the car can go up to 500 miles or more, and you can re-fuel in 5 minutes.
So why do environmentalists promote these very un-’green’ electric cars?
It is because environmental demagogues like Elon Musk at Tesla get rich on electric automobiles through government subsidies. They also get to act like know-it-alls about electric cars and so they get media power and political power from advocating them.
Now here is the analysis of the Boeing 747 fuel efficiency from a website called science.howstuffworks.com:
A plane like a Boeing 747 uses approximately 1 gallon of fuel (about 4 liters) every second. Over the course of a 10-hour flight, it might burn 36,000 gallons (150,000 liters). According to Boeing’s Web site, the 747 burns approximately 5 gallons of fuel per mile (12 liters per kilometer).
This sounds like a tremendously poor miles-per-gallon rating! But consider that a 747 can carry as many as 568 people. Let’s call it 500 people to take into account the fact that not all seats on most flights are occupied. A 747 is transporting 500 people 1 mile using 5 gallons of fuel. That means the plane is burning 0.01 gallons per person per mile. In other words, the plane is getting 100 miles per gallon per person! The typical car gets about 25 miles per gallon, so the 747 is much better than a car carrying one person, and compares favorably even if there are four people in the car. Not bad when you consider that the 747 is flying at 550 miles per hour…
And if the 747 is fully loaded its efficiency increases by 14%. These are the types of facts that environmentalists are desperate to keep from us so that they themselves appear to have all of the answers. Meanwhile the Toyota Prius needs a big taxpayer subsidy while getting 50 miles per gallon at 45 miles per hour with a go-kart engine and the world’s worst handling. Big deal. Try driving your Prius from New York to London.
Now here is a word about another ‘green’ fraud. Breitbart.com reported:
The CEO of outdoor clothing giant Patagonia is burnishing her anti-Republican bona fides again, this time saying she intends to pledge her entire company to the “resistance” of President Donald Trump.
Patagonia CEO Rose Marcario recently attacked President Trump for his statements about rolling back President Obama’s unusually aggressive campaign of confiscating millions of acres of state lands and claiming them as “national monuments.”
“We have to fight like hell to keep every inch of public land,” Marcario said in a May article at Huffpost. “I don’t have a lot of faith in politics and politicians right now.”
In an effort to prevent citizens from retaking possession of their state lands, one of her immediate actions will be to sue the Trump administration for its efforts to scale back Obama’s unprecedented land grab.’
This is happening because the ‘greenies’ have concocted a system whereby taxpayers fund the government acquisition of land. Then the “greenies” use the public land themselves for bird-watching, hiking and camping and do everything in their power to keep out anyone they oppose like snowmobilers, ATVs and hunters, or loggers and oil companies.
They claim that we all want that land “protected” and “unspoiled”, which is untrue. We conservatives believe that that land should be ‘dual use’, for both leisure and for its resources, since it is owned by “all of us” and should therefore benefit all of us, not just the ‘greenies’.
Here is a Nikita3.com editorial from March 2016 explaining this whole issue.
(Please bookmark this website and send this article by e-mail to your friends. And please recommend this site to all of your friends via Facebook and any other means. Let’s make Nikitas3.com the #1 conservative site by word of mouth. And if you would like to contribute to Nikitas3.com, please click the link at the upper right where it says “support this site”. Thank you, Nikitas)