President Trump held one of his huge rallies in New Jersey on January 28. This seems like an odd choice since Hillary beat Trump by a whopping 14 points in New Jersey in 2016, and by 550,000 votes.
So what is the president doing there? It does not appear that he can win the state’s electoral votes in 2020.
Not so fast. He is seeking to re-align the American electorate and the New Jersey electorate. His rally was hosted by Republican congressman Jeff Van Drew who recently switched from the Democrat party after first being elected in 2018 as a Democrat.
The rally is said to have generated more than 175,000 requests for tickets for the 7,000 seat venue. In the ‘blue’ state of New Jersey!
Wow. President Trump believes that he can reconfigure national politics in 2020. He not only wants to attract the 63 million people who voted for him in 2016, but 5 million to 10 million extra votes to give him a landslide victory.
And Nikitas3.com believes that he can do it. At one recent Trump rally in Wisconsin a survey of attendees found that a stunning 58% were not even Republicans but were Democrats and Independents.
Wow again. This is great news for Trump. It is reminiscent of the so-called Reagan Democrats who helped Republican president Ronald Reagan to win two terms in the White House.
We know that two major groups that are traditionally Democrat – blacks and union members – are showing strong support for president Trump, along with millions of other Americans.
For decades tens of millions of Independents have voted Democrat as a default vote; if they were not sure whether to vote Republican or Democrat they simply fell back on the old canard that Democrats were taking care of the poor with handout programs, doing their best for US workers, protecting the environment, etc.
President Trump has shown that there is a better way to take care of the poor – by giving them jobs – and to help American workers by making better trade deals and bringing jobs back from overseas. Trump also is exposing the destructive nature of ‘green’ intervention in the economy.
And congratulations to the president for the official signing of the new US-Mexico-Canada trade deal on January 29.
So president Trump is seeking to ‘flip’ millions of voters to his column, including hundreds of thousands of voters in New Jersey.
Nikitas3.com believes that Trump is going to do vastly better in New Jersey in 2020 that he did against Hillary and that he definitely could win the state’s 14 electoral votes.
He is seeking to do this in other ‘blue’ or ‘purple’ states like New Mexico, New Hampshire, Colorado, Virginia, Minnesota and Nevada. After all, he “flipped” Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania in 2016. They had not voted for a Republican candidate for president in the Electoral College since the 1980s.
The New Jersey rally is certainly sending shockwaves through the Democrat Establishment. Democrats have always wanted Americans to think that Republicans cannot win states like New Jersey. It is terrifying to the liberals that Trump is even trying. And if he does so, Democrats will go into a state of pure shock.
Will AOC Start a Third Party?
With left-wing radical Bernie Sanders doing very well in his second attempt to win the presidency, it is possible that Sanders and other left-wingers like congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) will form a third party. After all Sanders is not even officially a Democrat; he is an Independent.
AOC and Sanders and others think that the Democrats are not radical enough even though the entire Democrat party already is made up of mostly far-left extremists.
And considering the fact that Obama and other top Democrats may seek to derail a Sanders nomination, just as Hillary took away Sanders’ nomination in 2016, Sanders and his fellow travelers may indeed take their ball and go home with it, i.e., form their own militant political party.
This could happen whether Sanders wins the nomination or not. But, hey, the nature of extremism is that nothing is extreme enough; they just keep moving more and more to the fringes. And we conservatives should welcome a third party. It will only siphon votes away from Democrats across the nation and help Republican and conservative candidates.
More Electric Car Hoaxes
The electric car is a hoax. The electric car was first offered to the public in the late 1800s and never succeeded in the market over more than 100 years because it is so inefficient.
Today’s electric cars are successful in the marketplace only with substantial taxpayer subsidies. The Tesla electric car company has taken more than $5 billion in federal subsidies since it was founded in 2003 and has only earned a profit in one quarter over 17 years. And that profit came only because Tesla buyers get tax credits for buying the cars.
Other aspects of the electric car, like charging stations, also are being subsidized by taxpayers. Nikitas3.com has seen public charging stations popping up in small towns financed by the town itself. So why should someone in that town who does not own an electric car subsidize someone who does?
They shouldn’t. Many Tesla owners are rich people who drive electric cars as ‘greenie’ status symbols. Why should they be subsidized by a working person or a middle-class person?
Nikitas3.com has calculated that electric cars use 2 to 10 times as much energy per mile as gasoline-powered cars for the simple reason that electricity is the most highly “refined” energy source of all, and it is a fact of physics that ‘it consumes energy to refine energy’.
In addition, electric cars perform poorly in very hot climates while their batteries can lose half of their charge in frigid weather. This fact alone will put states with very cold Winters like Minnesota at a devastating disadvantage if the transportation system converts to electric cars and trucks. To make matters worse, heating the car’s interior in cold weather uses the battery’s power (like an electric heater), and so the driving range is further reduced.
The internal combustion engine is an amazing device. That is why it has come to dominate the world’s transportation system. The utopianists on the ‘green’ left are always trying to find something better, but they never do.
Meanwhile there are many aspects of electric cars that the Fake News media will never discuss. Auto.howstuffworks.com reported:
How long will an electric car battery last? The lithium-ion battery pack in the Tesla Roadster is projected to have a lifespan of about 5 years or 100,000 miles. At the end of that time the pack will need to be replaced, at a cost of approximately $10,000.
Wow. Quora.com reports:
Chevy will sell a replacement Volt pack for $4000 – 16 kWh
Nissan are setting up to replace a Leaf pack for $5800 – 24 kWh
Those are factory replacements
A complete pack from a crashed (but no battery damage) Tesla will cost around $12000 – 85 kWh
These figures never discussed in the media. At the same time many batteries fail long before 5 years or 100,000 miles. Nikitas3.com had my cell phone battery fail recently at 6 months. I have had rechargeable camera batteries that refused to accept a charge after only 15 cycles.
The number of electric cars in the world passed the 2m mark last year and the International Energy Agency estimates there will be 140m electric cars globally by 2030 if countries meet Paris climate agreement targets. This electric vehicle boom could leave 11 million tonnes of spent lithium-ion batteries in need of recycling between now and 2030, according to Ajay Kochhar, CEO of Canadian battery recycling startup Li-Cycle.
However, in the EU as few as 5% (pdf) of lithium-ion batteries are recycled. This has an environmental cost. Not only do the batteries carry a risk of giving off toxic gases if damaged, but core ingredients such as lithium and cobalt are finite and extraction can lead to water pollution and depletion among other environmental consequences.
You won’t see this discussed in the Fake News media. They act like the electric car has no environmental consequences whatsoever. This is false.
Nikitas3.com believes that electric cars are in the long run much worse for the environment than gasoline-powered cars.
Where will we get all of the extra electricity for electric cars if we are shutting down nuclear plants and coal-fired plants?
From windmills, you say? Nonsense. Windmills are grossly inefficient. Nikitas3.com has calculated that it would require up to three thousand giant 400-foot windmills to replace one single nuclear reactor, and that those windmills would cover one thousand times as much land, or more, as the nuclear reactor does.
Nikitas3.com also has calculated that the labor costs alone to maintain the windmills are two thousand times as much as the labor costs to maintain the generators in a nuclear plant.
Nikitas3.com also calculates the windmills consume 500 times as much in resources to make (concrete, steel, copper, composite material for the blades, paint for the towers) compared to getting the same amount of power from a nuclear reactor. This is obviously a huge negative for the environment.
Meanwhile lithium is the reactive alkali metal in batteries in phones, laptops and in electric cars. Wired.co.uk reported:
In May 2016, hundreds of protestors threw dead fish onto the streets of Tagong, a town on the eastern edge of the Tibetan plateau. They had plucked them from the waters of the Liqi river, where a toxic chemical leak from the Ganzizhou Rongda Lithium mine had wreaked havoc with the local ecosystem.
There are pictures of masses of dead fish on the surface of the stream. Some eyewitnesses reported seeing cow and yak carcasses floating downstream, dead from drinking contaminated water. It was the third such incident in the space of seven years in an area which has seen a sharp rise in mining activity, including operations run by BYD, the world’ biggest supplier of lithium-ion batteries for smartphones and electric cars. After the second incident, in 2013, officials closed the mine, but when it reopened in April 2016, the fish started dying again.
Lithium-ion batteries are a crucial component of efforts to clean up the planet. The battery of a Tesla Model S has about 12 kilograms of lithium in it, while grid storage solutions that will help balance renewable energy would need much more.
Demand for lithium is increasing exponentially, and it doubled in price between 2016 and 2018. According to consultancy Cairn Energy Research Advisors, the lithium ion industry is expected to grow from 100 gigawatt hours (GWh) of annual production in 2017, to almost 800 GWhs in 2027.
William Adams, head of research at Metal Bulletin, says the current spike in demand can be traced back to 2015, when the Chinese government announced a huge push towards electric vehicles in its 13th Five Year Plan. That has led to a massive rise in the number of projects to extract lithium, and there are “hundreds more in the pipeline,” says Adams.
The mining for and manufacture of batteries is a major negative for the environment. Meanwhile look at this about lithium:
In South America, the biggest problem is water. The continent’s Lithium Triangle, which covers parts of Argentina, Bolivia and Chile, holds more than half the world’s supply of the metal beneath its otherworldly salt flats. It’s also one of the driest places on earth. That’s a real issue, because to extract lithium, miners start by drilling a hole in the salt flats and pumping salty, mineral-rich brine to the surface.
Then they leave it to evaporate for months at a time, first creating a mixture of manganese, potassium, borax and lithium salts which is then filtered and placed into another evaporation pool, and so on. After between 12 and 18 months, the mixture has been filtered enough that lithium carbonate – white gold – can be extracted.
It’s a relatively cheap and effective process, but it uses a lot of water – approximately 500,000 gallons per tonne of lithium. In Chile’s Salar de Atacama, mining activities consumed 65 per cent of the region’s water. That is having a big impact on local farmers – who grow quinoa and herd llamas – in an area where some communities already have to get water driven in from else.
If this were being done to get a mineral to make, say, guns, the environmentalists would be screaming to the high heavens. But since it is for electric cars and solar batteries, they say nothing. Because environmentalist themselves are getting rich on this whole scheme.
Anti-Gun Hoaxer Gets Caught in a Big Lie
Dr. Joseph Sakran, a surgeon and an outspoken anti-gun activist in Virginia, tried to pull an anti-gun hoax recently and got caught. He claimed in a tweet that he found a flyer on his car windshield with a slick graphic of a gun with the words ‘The End is Near…’ He posted a photo on the internet of the flyer on the windshield. Sakran tweeted:
“Debated whether to share this, & after a lot of thought here it is… Last week I’m leaving my home for work & I find this paper under my windshield. One does not have to see the rest of the sentence that was covered to understand the intent of this message, a Death Threat…”
He attributed the flyer to dangerous gun-rights vigilantes until viewers on the internet noticed that the photo of the flyer had a reflection in the car windshield that showed that the car was in Sakran’s garage. Other evidence pointed to the fact that Sakran had made the flyer himself and had placed it on the windshield.
Sakran then made up more lies to cover up the hoax but then pulled the whole thing off the internet when he was exposed.
This, friends, is what we conservatives are up against every day. These left-wingers never stop with their hoaxes to try and smear us like the endless race hoaxes by people like Jussie Smollett and the one at the Air Force academy. Unfortunately for the lefties, we have the internet to expose these fraudsters.
Update: Sakran campaigned for Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden. The Gateway Pundit reports that ‘Sakran’s family and friends are posting pro-islam, anti-Israel and anti-American posts on social media that often include guns.’ (Sakran is apparently a muslim.)
Beware of ‘Eco Friendly’ Products
‘Greenies’ are always telling us that products that have been proven useful in the marketplace like plastic packaging are a danger to the environment.
This is nonsense. Plastic packaging helps to preserve food for longer periods of time than might otherwise be possible. This significantly cuts down not only on food spoilage but also on transportation costs and fuel waste since plastic is lightweight – for instance plastic bottles are much lighter than glass bottles.
This dichotomy extends to myriad products that the ‘greenies’ are calling harmful.
Angela Logomasini at The Washington Examiner reported:
A good number of “eco-friendly” shopping suggestions harken back to a more primitive, less industrial age. “Natural” materials such as wood, cloth, and metal products are preferred to plastics, shiny and colorful paper, and anything synthetic. Reusable cloth-wrapping materials are a suggested alternative to traditional wrapping paper and bows. Plastic products in general, from toys to cookie containers to plastic party cups and straws, are on the naughty list. Alternatives include wood toys, rag dolls, reusable coffee mugs, wooden toothbrushes, organic cotton bags, tin food storage containers, and metal straws.
Yet there is no good reason to believe that these less technological materials are environmentally friendly. In fact, life-cycle studies that assess the environmental impacts of various products (including plastic, paper, cloth, and ceramics) find that single-use plastic and paper products have better environmental profiles.
Plastics, in particular, often far outperform cloth or other reusable products when it comes to environmental footprints. Plastic consumer goods such as straws, foam cups, and plastic bags are much less energy-intensive to produce and ship (because they are lightweight) than alternatives like metal straws, ceramic cups, or cloth bags.
In fact, one study found that reusable cloth shopping bags require more than 100 uses before they actually use less energy, make less waste, and produce less pollution than their plastic alternatives. A Danish government study found that organic cotton bags would need to be reused 7,100 times. A ceramic cup requires more than 1,000 uses before it becomes more energy efficient to use than a plastic foam cup. And more often than not, these items are disposed of long before they attain an equal environmental footprint with plastics.
Plastics are also more sanitary and safer, reducing risks related to pathogens or accidents. For example, environmental activists suggest gifting metal water bottles and straws instead of plastics. Not only is it more energy-intensive to mine and transport metal than it is to make plastic, but metal water bottles and straws may also harbor pathogens if not cleaned properly. And they can be dangerous, particularly for the disabled. Last year, one disabled woman tripped while holding a Mason jar with a metal straw affixed to the lid. The straw went into her eye, then into her brain, and killed her.
When it comes to disposal, much of these materials will eventually end up in a landfill — be they cloth, paper, plastic, or wood. Since landfills are basically designed to mummify trash, none of it decomposes. To top it off, plastics also take up less landfill space than the other alternatives.
OK, we could go on and on. And to put it all in perspective, just remember the Golden Rule: Virtually every idea and product that ‘greenies’ promote are worse for the environment than existing products.
Consider recycling, which is one of the most inefficient and costly things that we are forced to do under government mandates.
Look around your neighborhood if you put out your recycling on a windy day, or if the recycling bins are put out near the road where passing cars create a draft. The wind or the draft may blow plastic bags, bottles, styrofoam, newspaper and cardboard out of the bin and into the neighborhood. Nikitas3.com has seen it many times on my street and calculates that recycling material blowing out of bins alone contributes up to 25,000 tons of trash to the US environment every year.
And that is just the start. Recycling is grossly inefficient. How many millions of hours of labor and how many millions of dollars worth of hot water do Americans use to scrub out peanut butter jars, deli containers and other plastic items for recycling? How much energy is used by special trucks to haul around recycling materials?
It is far too much to count. Recycling itself is massively inefficient and costly. Plastic must be transported separately and sorted manually, at very high labor costs. It then must be moved around again and again for recycling, consuming large amounts of energy and causing pollution at every move.
Even worse, a lot of ‘recycled’ material ends up being tossed in landfills anyway.
The best solution is to throw all garbage including plastic, paper and cardboard into the trash and burn it as fuel in plants that covert the heat to electricity. This practice is common in Europe and less so in the US. If you don’t know how it works, then look it up.
All cities and towns should have these trash-to-electricity plants so that recycling materials don’t have to be cleaned, moved around again and again, sorted, etc. but can be simply thrown out in the trash. It also would give us the most valuable energy source available – electricity – in return for useless garbage.
Many Muslim Males are Horrible Creatures
Muslim males who move from their backward countries to the civilized nations in Europe and the US are largely barbarians. They not only have slovenly habits like dirtiness, laziness, stupidity and arrogance, but they treat women horribly. They treat white women even worse in an intentional act of disrespect and disdain. PJ Media reported:
A British girl was “passed around like a piece of meat” between Muslim men who abused and raped her between the ages of 12 and 14, a court heard earlier this month. Her problems began after she befriended a young Muslim man who, before long, was “forcing her to perform sex acts on other [and older] men,” and receiving money for it. When she resisted, he threatened her and her family with death and destruction. Speaking now as an adult, the woman explained how she eventually “lost count of how many men I was forced to have sex with” during two years of “hell” when she often considered suicide. Among other anecdotes, the court heard how the young “girl was raped on a dirty mattress … and forced to perform [oral] sex acts in a churchyard,” and how one of her abusers “urinated on her in an act of humiliation” afterward.
Although her experiences are akin to those of many British girls, that she was “passed around like a piece of meat” is a reminder of the experiences of another British woman known by the pseudonym of Kate Elysia. The Muslim men she encountered “made me believe I was nothing more than a sl*t, a white wh*re,” she said. “They treated me like a leper, apart from when they wanted sex. I was less than human to them, I was rubbish.”
What explains this ongoing exploitation of European women by Muslim men—which exists well beyond the UK and has become epidemic in Germany, Sweden, and elsewhere? The answer begins by understanding that, although these sordid accounts are routinely dismissed as the activities of “criminals,” they are in fact reflective of nearly fourteen centuries of Muslim views on and treatment of European women.
For starters, Muslim men have long had an obsessive attraction to fair women of the European variety. This, as all things Islamic, traces back to their prophet, Muhammad. In order to entice his men to war on the Byzantines—who, as the Arabs’ nearest European neighbors represented “white” people—the prophet told them that they would be able to sexually enslave the “yellow” women (an apparent reference to their fair hair).
For over a millennium after Muhammad, jihadi leaders—Arabs, Berbers, Turks, Tatars et al.—also coaxed their men to jihad on Europe by citing (and later sexually enslaving) its women. As one example, prior to their invasion into Spain, Tariq bin Ziyad, a jihadi hero, enticed the Muslims by saying, “You must have heard numerous accounts of this island, you must know how the Grecian maidens, as beautiful as houris … are awaiting your arrival, reclining on soft couches in the sumptuous palaces of crowned lords and princes.”
That the sexual enslavement of fair women was an aspect that always fueled the jihad is evident in other ways. Thus, for M.A. Khan, an author and former Muslim, it is “impossible to disconnect Islam from the Viking slave-trade, because the supply was absolutely meant for meeting [the] Islamic world’s unceasing demand for the prized white slaves” and for “white sex-slaves.”
Just as Muslim rapists see British and other European women as “pieces of meat,” “nothing more than sl*ts,” and “white wh*res,” so did Muslim luminaries always describe the nearest European women of Byzantium. Thus, for Abu Uthman al-Jahiz (b. 776), a prolific court scholar, the females of Constantinople were the “most shameless women in the whole world … [T]hey find sex more enjoyable” and “are prone to adultery.” Abd al-Jabbar (b. 935), another prominent scholar, claimed that “adultery is commonplace in the cities and markets of Byzantium”—so much so that even “the nuns from the convents went out to the fortresses to offer themselves to monks.”
But as the author of Byzantium Viewed by the Arabs, explains:
Our [Arab/Muslim] sources show not Byzantine women but writers’ images of these women, who served as symbols of the eternal female—constantly a potential threat, particularly due to blatant exaggerations of their sexual promiscuity. In our texts [Arab/Muslim], Byzantine women are strongly associated with sexual immorality. … While the one quality that our sources never deny is the beauty of Byzantine women, the image that they create in describing these women is anything but beautiful. Their depictions are, occasionally, excessive, virtually caricatures, overwhelmingly negative. … The behavior of most women in Byzantium was a far cry from the depictions that appear in Arabic sources.
OK, we know the deal. We have seen these bearded monsters in the media and all over Europe, acting like they own the world. But we also know that they understand that they are losers and that their arrogance is really a false sign of self-hatred and insecurity.