Hapless Joe Biden’s secret plan is, most folks won’t own a car in the future, they’ll ride in autonomous EV cars. 

As California hits its predictably summer temperatures, Democrats citing Climate Change are pushing universally electric cars and the demise of the combustion engine even though electric companies are now begging folks to reduce their energy consumption by not charging their EV cars. But electricity may be the least of our worries with the prospect of universally electric cars. Cobalt is a critical element in the production of lithium batteries used in Electric cars.

Mined by mostly Chinese Companies, in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Canada or Morocco, cobalt-containing batteries are critical to companies from Samsung Electronics Co. to Volkswagen AG.

China now controls essentially 100% of the Cobalt world market. As noted in this report in Bloomberg back in 2018, China was gobbling up Cobalt mines and the companies that process it. If America were to go all EV, China would be the sole source of Cobalt today.

Democrat leaders who push electric cars have no answer for this and other related supply chain issues for the development and production of electric cars. To say the Democrats are in the back pocket of the Communist Chinese Government is an understatement.

Democrats like Sisolak, Biden and Newsom are essentially Chinese assets clearly doing their bidding. They know these facts yet they continue to push China’s policies of electric cars intentionally.

The Biden Pentagon is even pursuing electric tanks and planes.

China wants the U.S. to replace its gas and diesel

1. To put us at a competitive disadvantage and

2. They’ll have a strangle hold on the U.S. economy.

Sisolak has allowed China to buy up Nevada mining interests along with Nevada farm land and water rights. China now owns over 44k single family homes in Nevada, making the Chinese the largest landlord in Nevada. They now own, through Blackrock, many MGM casino hotels on the strip. Sisolak bought 588K PPE gear from the Chinese instead of from American companies.

CV19 and the war in Ukraine have proven the failure of globalism creating massive disruptions in supply chains. America must be energy independent to be truly free, which means oil and gas, not Chinese Cobalt EV cars for the few.






Share On:
Related Posts



This iconic company is in the opinion of this blogger, heading down a path of extinction due to the politically correct thinking and going along with the thinking that there will only be an all electric future for automobiles!

The CEO, Mary Barra, who will be able to retire with a retirement fund approaching $100 million, a current compensation package highest in the auto industry will then leave the hapless GM with a self imposed inability to manufacture cars that people will actually want or be able to afford.

Becoming chummy with the Biden administration supporting its NO ICE vehicle policy in the near future, will be a big mistake.

Can anyone other that delusional GM management, think that the people driving cars in the future USA will ever ONLY have electric cars? NEVER!!!!

Both Joe Biden and Mary Barra will be long dead as GM winds don to certain bankruptcy in the future…setting its goals on all EV’s, but neither of them will have any consequences of the demise of this fine company.

It is unrealistic to think that the cost and convenience of a 5 minute gas-up will be replaced with a long line and uncertain ways to recharge for 30 minutes or a hour or more makes any sense on a public way.

Imagine your EV plugged on a public street, attached to a cord in an urban setting. Will the local gang members or vandals steal the cord or the car?

How will all that electricity generation be possible for all those e-cars when now we have shortages????

The Internal combustion engine can be refitted to run on hydrogen and ammonia…the fuels of the future…(hydrogen is the most abundant gas in the universe).

I feel sorry for all those employees at GM, FORD and other car manufacturers who have taken the path to self destruction with only EV’s in their future….


Why Electric Vehicles Are Not the Future

Many vouch for electric cars as the future of traveling. These vehicles are considered safe for the environment because they do not produce any emissions by burning fuel.

But electric cars may not be the pollution-free future we all envisage. This is primarily because electric cars are not as environmental-friendly as you may think.
Problems if all cars were electric

If all the cars in the world were to turn electric, there could be major effects on vehicle performance and the economy at large.

The current technology does not put electric cars at par with fuel-run cars. An average electric car travels less on a full charge than a fuel car travels on a full tank.

To compensate for this, all the governments in the world would have to replace gas stations with charging stations. This would be an expensive ordeal.

Electric cars are known to provide more torque, leading to faster pick-up. But fuel cars can achieve greater max speeds.

Even if technological advancements solve the problem of speed, the batteries of electric cars pose a serious environmental threat.

Electric car batteries add to electronic waste. Also when these batteries expire, they emit a lot of carbon dioxide, adding to the problem of climate change.
Why electric vehicle are not the future?

When you imagine the future, do you imagine clean, unpolluted air? That dream is not possible with electric vehicles.

Indirectly, electric cars cause pollution by using fuel-generated electricity. Even the car batteries add to pollution during manufacturing.

Lastly, hydrogen cars will take over the car market because they are a safer and more efficient alternative.
Why electric cars are not the solution?

There are a couple of reasons for this.

First, electric cars are not friendly towards the environment. They add to pollution indirectly by using electricity.

Compared to gas cars, electric cars offer a subpar performance. They even have less range, meaning you can travel longer distances in a fuel car.
Are electric cars the future or not?

The US government is pushing for the use of electric cars. In collaboration with private organizations, the government has pledged billions of dollars into the effort.

Even if the government manages to construct charging stations and create longer lasting batteries, will electric cars become environmental-friendly?

The answer is: no. For example, 60% of the electricity in the US is generated using fossil fuels. Plus, the manufacturing of car batteries creates a lot of pollution.

Here are 10 reasons why electric cars are not the future of clean traveling –

Cost – As of now, electric cars are way more expensive than their fuel counterparts.
Performance – Electric cars do not have an internal combustion engine, resulting in poorer performance.
Pollution – They don’t emit greenhouse gases but need electricity to charge which is produced using fossil fuels.
Inconvenience – Only major metropolitan cities have battery charging stations.
Waste – Electric car batteries will add to electronic waste.
Capacity – A fuel tank has more capacity than an electric car battery.
Emission – When electric car batteries decay they start releasing CO2 gas.
Incompatibility – Electric cars are less compatible with solar and wind energy.
Competition – The universal emphasis on electric cars is neglecting the research on other alternative fuels.
Backward – Electric cars are less compatible with autonomous driving technology.

Electric cars are far from being a permanent solution to pollution and climate change. The idea that electric cars do not add to pollution is a myth.

Fossil fuels are burned to produce electricity in many countries. The same electricity powers electric car batteries. Indirectly, electric cars contribute to pollution.

Replacing gas cars with electric cars will be expensive. All gas stations will have to convert to charging stations. This seems impractical.
What the supporters of electric cars don’t understand is that electric cars also cause pollution. They use fuel-generated electricity to recharge.

Then there is the battery which needs a lot of material for production. Mining these materials also adds to pollution, and almost all come from unfriendly sources-China, Congo etc….

Eventually, hydrogen fuels will take over before electric cars have the opportunity to upgrade and become more efficient. This is why electric cars are not the future.
What are the negatives of electric vehicles?

Electric cars may not produce any emissions themselves, but they contribute to pollution nevertheless.

Charging an electric car battery requires electricity which comes from the burning of fossil fuels.

Besides this, electric cars have other negatives. The production of batteries requires raw materials like copper, iron, and aluminum. It also needs rare materials like nickel and cobalt.

To obtain these materials, mining is required. This activity causes a lot of pollution. Then, these materials have to be supplied which also adds to the problem.
Why electric cars are the future?

Electric cars can become the immediate future, but not because they are the solution to the global climate crisis.

Many governments are pushing for the adoption of electric cars to reduce their net carbon emissions. For example, Canada will not allow the sale of fuel cars from 2035.

Even the US and the UK are onboard. In fact, the UK plans to ban the sale of gas cars in 2030, five years earlier than Canada.

Prospects like these hint at a future with electric cars on the road.
Car batteries add to electronic waste

Although newer innovations are trying to solve this problem, the biggest problem with electric cars is range.

An average gas car can outlast an average electric car in the market. Also, electric cars do not have access to charging stations.

Some metropolitan cities have this facility. But if you drive to a rural location you can forget about finding a station to recharge your car.

Another concern is the car battery. Electric car batteries are temperature sensitive. High heat wears the battery down faster while extreme cold reduces the car’s range.
Hydrogen cars are the future not electric

The real future of traveling are hydrogen cars, not electric. They offer a more efficient and clean solution to the climate crisis.

Hydrogen cars offer more range than electric cars. This is because the energy storage in hydrogen cars is densely packed.

Refueling your car with hydrogen takes as much time as refueling a gas car. But most electric cars can take up to hours to recharge.

The only problem is obtaining pure hydrogen. Despite being the most common element in the universe, Hydrogen cannot be found in its pure form on earth.
Biggest problem with electric cars

There are many problems with electric cars. They may seem harmless due to zero carbon emissions of their own, but don’t be fooled.

By using electricity, electric cars indirectly add to pollution. Even their batteries lead to CO2 emissions once they start decaying.

In terms of performance, they are no match for gas cars. The lackluster performance of electric cars boils down to the lack of an internal combustion engine.

When it comes to range, electric cars go down quickly. Compared to gas stations, there aren’t enough charging stations to support electric cars.

Currently, electric cars are not very affordable. For most people, gas cars are more accessible and manageable.

Even though many governments are banning the sale of fuel cars, electric cars are not the way to go.

Contrary to popular belief, electric cars cause pollution. They may not do it directly, but they use electricity which comes from non-renewable sources.

In terms of range and performance, electric cars cannot compete with gas cars. Also, the current infrastructure is more conducive to gas cars than electric.

Lastly, recharging an electric car can take hours. Some models have faster charging time, but it is still slower than filling gas at a station.
FAQ relating to Why electric vehicles are not the future
Why gas cars are better than electric?

Gas or fuel cars can out-drive electric cars because of more fuel capacity. Electric cars cannot travel that far due to current technological restraints.

The economy supports fuel cars as you can find a gas station easily. Electric cars will have a hard time traveling long distances because of few or no charging stations.
Will gas cars be worthless in 5 years?

No, gas cars will not be worthless in the next 5 years. However, many governments across the world are promoting electric vehicles over fuel vehicles.

Some governments have set a deadline to ban all gas vehicles.
Will gas cars go away?

Eventually they will, ( not in our lifetime). Fuel cars are undoubtedly harmful for the environment due to emissions.

A much safer alternative is bio-fuel. It does not release any harmful emission and maintains the vehicle’s performance.
Are gas cars going to be banned?

Yes, many countries are gearing towards a ban on the sale of gas cars. For example, the US government passed a law banning the purchase of fuel vehicles by 2035.

The ban does not apply to space and military vehicles.
Key Takeaways

Dumping of electric car batteries adds to electronic waste.
Electric car batteries emit greenhouse gases like CO2.
The production of electric car batteries leads to a lot of pollution.
Electric vehicles are less compatible with wind and solar energy.
Hydrogen cars are more sustainable than electric vehicles.
The US government has issued a law banning the purchase of gas vehicles by 2035.
The global infrastructure will not be able to support an electric car-only economy.


Our takeovers and acquisitions over the last 40 years, have taught us that it is vital and necessary to conduct quiet due diligence on the publicly traded takeover target, to determine how viable it is from a financing standpoint.

Is it really a great price, and at that price is it able to be financed with the highest leverage ( loans to be structured) possible, to make it a viable acquisition, and then after all the loans taken to buy it, is there a profit still left for the new owner?

Elon Musk appears to have made an impulsive move to acquire TWITTER, without doing such simple due diligence and calculation of its financial viability.

However, his name and reputation at that time as the RICHEST person in the world ( using the over-hyped and overpriced Tesla stock as value), gave some impetus for his investment bankers to find a way to structure a really badly overpriced acquisition transaction. After all, they saw stratospheric fees and a $43 billion value.

” Elon Musk offered to buy Twitter for $54.20 a share, or about $43 billion.

“I invested in Twitter as I believe in its potential to be the platform for free speech around the globe, and I believe free speech is a societal imperative for a functioning democracy,” Musk wrote in a letter sent to Twitter Chairman Bret Taylor.”

Why would any sane (normal) buyer want to buy this business which had an adjusted stockholders’ equity of approximately $6 billion, and a pretax credit loss from operations last year of $411 million and pay $43 billion???!

Some people have more money than brains, as they say.

From a financial standpoint, there was no reason to overpay for such a weak performing business at 7 times its net worth!

There was absolutely no reason to buy it at that price or even at half that price, especially since Mr. Musk suspected that a great deal more than 5% of its accounts were actually computer bots, an not really people who could or would generate a future profit for the company!

Musk should have said to the company that he could consider an acquisition AFTER due diligence FIRST…not after. On top of all his mistakes, he agreed to a $1 billion break p fee that he would pay if he did not conclude the deal!

Are Moe, Larry and Curly his financial advisors?

Twitter alone is really a boring company. It tries to sell advertising worldwide by having readers click on links….great thought but the year before it lost $1.3 BILLION….

Now the lawsuits-he said they said-bad guy, good guy, etc…

Our suggestion, find a REAL business, like maybe one of the legacy auto companies to merge with TESLA, the auto company and have a REAL business!
Tesla could buy Renault which has a market value approximating $7 billion, and also own 44% of NISSAN! WHAT A DEAL!!!!!

Elon, call us we got some ideas for you, that will make financial sense for you, TESLA and your stockholders.


Every business has the challenge of growing its revenues and profits, as a means of survival among its competition. This simple business model applies to every type and size of business, in every industry, in every country in the world.

Management faces the challenge, by formulating business models for the success of the business, through sales and marketing programs that may increase its revenues and profits-IF they are successful.

However, success is never assured no matter how well planned are the forecasts and presentations. Just remember back to the NEW COKE rollout of a new and improved version of the popular soda. IT WAS A TOTAL DISASTER!

Management failures of grand business growth schemes are plenty and will continue, because the best laid plans are only “guesses” and opinions of the people developing them. Nobody can predict the outcome of a marketing plan, and can only wait to see if it works, after it is implemented.

Our firm as consultants and/or principals in business acquisitions, have learned a lot over the last 40 years of how to grow the revenues of a business,country no matter what industry or country.

Our principals have owned businesses of every size with the largest having over 12,500 employees and over 300 locations, to a large NYSE public company with revenues of over $160 million, acquired via tender offer. We have been involved in valuations of businesses, liquidations, proxy contest consulting, strategic planning for acquisitions and every type of related consulting a business may require-large or small.

Our principals proposed an acquisition of a large multi-national publicly traded company with revenues in excess of $100 billion, and structured its financing, but the target instead merged with a competitor instead.