July 8, 2025 • 34 mins
The John Kobylt Show Hour 3 (07/08) - USC Prof. Michael Mische comes on the show to talk about why California has high gas prices than the rest of the country. More on why CA has higher gas prices than the rest of the country. Alex Stone comes on the show to talk about TSA getting rid of their "shoes off" policy. We still don't know what caused the Palisades and Altadena Fires but we might be getting closer.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Can't. I am six forty.
Speaker 2 (00:02):
You're listening to the John Cobelt Podcast on the iHeartRadio app.
Speaker 1 (00:06):
Every day.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
We do this from one until four o'clock and every
day after four o'clock. If you miss anything, go to
the podcast John Cobelt Show on demand on the iHeart app.
We had Rick Caruso on at the top of the
two o'clock hour if you missed it. That's why the
podcast exists, so you could listen to the two o'clock
hour Rick Caruso. Because Rick is getting frustrated with Bass
(00:33):
and city Hall and the bureaucracy. And I'm saying this,
I don't think Bath cares at all if the Palisades
ever gets rebuilt. I think that whole crowd in her
administration and the city council would love to build affordable
housing for poor people and homeless people and drug addicts.
Speaker 1 (00:55):
I think that's the future they see.
Speaker 2 (00:58):
So they're going to tie up Palisades residents and keep
them from rebuilding until the Palisades people give up and
then sell to developers. And with Scott Wiener's new bill
and Sacramento that he's pushing, all these residential lots could
be turned into low income apartment buildings. I think that's
(01:18):
Bass's vision and nuisance vision as well. We'll be on
top of this over the next coming days and weeks.
I want to get Michael mcche on here. Michael mcche
is the USC professor and we've talked to him several
times this year. He went through fifty years of gas
price statistics here in California and concluded that California's always
(01:39):
had the most expensive gas and it's almost always been
self inflicted by government to taxes and regulations, almost never
has anything to do with price gouging by the oil companies.
And secondly, he's discovered that with two refineries closing and
a new sixty five cent price increase coming from CARB
(02:01):
for a low carbon field standard, we're looking at gas
prices exceeding maybe eight point fifty within the next year
and a half. He wrote this great piece in the
Los Angeles Times in the last week, and I wanted
to have him come on and talk about it. Michael, welcome,
Thank you.
Speaker 3 (02:20):
John.
Speaker 4 (02:21):
Good to be back with you.
Speaker 1 (02:22):
I will say it seems like more and more of.
Speaker 2 (02:27):
The rest of the media has picked up on your
writings and research and is affirming and publishing what you
have been warning about. And I don't see any credible
pushback against your prediction that the gas prices may be
exceeding eight dollars not too far down the road.
Speaker 4 (02:48):
Well, it's kind of hard to push back on the
statistics and the data and the facts. You know, in California,
by the way, that eight forty three was the kind
of the worst case scenario, and that assumes that we
can't replace the gasoline we're losing as a result of
the two refineries closing. Right, So if you look at
(03:09):
the two refineries that are closing from twenty twenty three
to twenty twenty six April, we will have lost close
to twenty one percent of our in state refinery production
of gasoline. Okay, So the question then becomes, you know,
where are you going to get the gasoline? And that's
(03:32):
you know, at least six to ten million gallons a day,
depending on how you want to calculate it. And so
the issue then becomes, how are you going to replace it?
Where you're going to get the gasoline from, and how
much is it really going to cost the California consumer. So,
you know, this is the situation that the state is confronting.
Speaker 2 (03:55):
Now, is it true that that Newsome has been holding
meetings on this the legislature has been warned.
Speaker 1 (04:03):
Carl Demyo was claiming that.
Speaker 2 (04:05):
A couple of weeks ago that the oil companies sent
in executives and briefed legislators, briefed Newsome and said, hey,
this is real. These refineries really are closing. In fact,
we might be closing down a pipeline because there's not
enough oil in it. They can't keep the pressure going.
Speaker 4 (04:25):
What are you hearing, Yeah, well I've heard the same thing. Uh,
and it's and it's a pretty serious thing. I mean,
I think I think Gavin's in South Carolina. Uh was
there yesterday? Hopefully he took a look at the South
Carolina gasoline prices at two dollars and eighty cents a
gallon and ask himself why is it so high in California?
So perhaps he had to wherewithal to do that. But
(04:48):
but let's let's, you know, get back to you know,
what's happening in California. Are in state production?
Speaker 5 (04:55):
Uh?
Speaker 4 (04:55):
Now, we have anywhere from the fifth to the seventh
largest oil reserves in the country underneath our feet. In California,
our oil production has fallen by eighty eight percent over
the last thirty years.
Speaker 1 (05:10):
Eighty eight percent.
Speaker 4 (05:12):
Eighty eight percent absolutely falling through the ground. So, in
other words, if you look at nineteen eighty two, forty
years ago plus, we produce sixty one percent of our
oil for our needs in the state of California, which
meant we imported, you know, thirty nine percent. The most
recent estimates in this sort of anecdotal when you're talking
(05:34):
to the people, is that this year today, we're producing
less than twenty percent of our oil in state, which
means we're gonna have to import at least eighty percent. Right,
so the full decline over forty year period's been eighty
eight percent. But the problem that you're going to have
with that, it's a real serious problem, is that if
(05:56):
you're producing it less than twenty percent, chances are you
don't have enough oil going into the pipeline to even
operate it. You need pressure in the pipeline to move
the oil through it. So if you're not producing enough
oil in state to move it through an in state
pipeline to an in state refineries, that's a big problem.
(06:20):
And so if you lose that pipeline. So you need
two things. You need pressure to move it through, and
the pipelines run on an economic model. The more barrels
of oil you pump through it, the more profitable the pipeline. Right,
So if you're not pumping through a lot of oil,
you have low pressure and low economies of scale, the
(06:41):
pipeline will shut down. It's just pure engineering and economics
at this point. So if that pipeline shuts down, then
you've got a bigger problem in terms of getting oil
to the refineries, which means you're probably going to be
flooding the freeways with trucks and tankers. Big, big problem. Well, Governork,
(07:05):
to my knowledge, you know, to my knowledge, the governor
has been briefed on that.
Speaker 2 (07:10):
He's been briefed. Well, something has to be done. Some
adult has to reverse the direction we're going in here.
Speaker 4 (07:20):
Well you would think. So, you know, when you're looking
at a twenty one percent decline in in state production,
now you know the narrative now is, oh, don't worry
about it. The markets will compensate for that, will find
the oil someplace else, and the world will be perfect. Okay, great,
you're going to be tanking it in on these big
maritime tankers, probably someplace from Asia most likely, or you're
(07:42):
going to circumvent that Jones act like California has done
and bring it in from the Bahamas, which is actually
American gasoline shipped to the Bahamas. You change the flag,
and then you bring it into California as an import.
So you know, what's the net effect on greenhouse emissions
in the climate if indeed you're you're just what.
Speaker 2 (08:05):
I understand that all this, all this is going to
make it make more greenhouse emissions.
Speaker 1 (08:11):
Whatever they think, the problem is, it's all going to
get worse. So why do this?
Speaker 4 (08:17):
Yeah, and it's it's sort of what we said it
was offshoring, right, you're going to offshore this this issue,
but you're not. You're not curing it. You're not even
Actually I think you know, I'm not an a climatologist,
but it would seem to me that by using these
offshore refineries and using all these tankers, you're contributing to
more greenhouse emissions.
Speaker 2 (08:37):
You've written you've written that in your story in the
La Times that we're sitting on one of the largest
untapped reserves in the world. It's called the Monterey Shale,
but we import most of our oil from a rock
Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Guyana, and Ecuador. We have in the
past imported it from Russia and Venezuela, and then uh
(08:58):
we send it to be refined. Mind and then the
tanks take thirty to forty days to cross the ocean
from Asia.
Speaker 1 (09:07):
That's that's an insane.
Speaker 2 (09:09):
System, very costly, and it produces way more in emissions.
Speaker 4 (09:15):
You know, I think when you look at the state's
natural resources and the abundance of that, and the fact
that we also have when you count up all the
California debt, including the unfunded pension liability, we're sitting at
one point six trillion dollars in debt in the state.
Thirty nine percent of our GDP is debt. And you
sort of look at yourself and you look at these
(09:36):
consumer prices and you say, well, gee, isn't isn't there
like a better way of addressing this that it makes
more economic sense for the hard working people in California.
And that's simply you know what I'm asking you know,
as you know, as an individual, you know, as somebody
who studies this industry, there must be a more cogent
(09:57):
way of going about this, and apparently you know there
are many different ways of going about it that I
think would resolve in a steady supply of fuel, responsible
environmental stewardship, and a reduction and gasoline prices. I mean,
this is insane, and they're.
Speaker 5 (10:15):
Going to go up.
Speaker 2 (10:16):
Let me ask you one more thing, because then I
got to get to the news. There's two more refineries
scheduled to close in the coming months.
Speaker 1 (10:24):
We'll up sixty six in Los Angeles Bellero in the
Bay Area.
Speaker 2 (10:28):
This is two hundred and eighty four thousand barrels of
daily production according to your article here. Is there anything
that can be done to keep these two refineries.
Speaker 4 (10:37):
Going doubtful because they've already taken significant financial write offs
of billions of dollars against those refineries, and Valero in
particular has made public statements that they're out of the
state and they are closing it down. So the best
we might be able to do is use some of
those refinery facilities for storage tanks for imported gas.
Speaker 2 (11:00):
So this is a done deal. There's nothing we can do.
We're not going to get this refining capacity back. There's
no emergency action that Newsom could take to reverse the situation.
Speaker 4 (11:13):
As far as I know, it would be very difficult
for him to invoke emergency actions in this area. Now
he might be able to do it. I'm not a
you know, a lawyer in that regard or at all,
but I think it would be very difficult for him
to compel These refineries sustain the state under current operating conditions.
And again, they're also losing money. When the price accruent
(11:37):
is this low, and it's been seventeen percent lower under
Trump than it was previously, the margins are going to
be low. So the refiners are struggling either way. So
you know, they're given the regulatory environment, the costs, and
all the other factors that we've talked about, including the
(11:57):
political bias against the refiners.
Speaker 2 (12:00):
Apparently this is crazy. Michael mchee, USC professor, thank you
for coming on.
Speaker 4 (12:05):
I really appreciate it. John, have a great day.
Speaker 1 (12:07):
All right.
Speaker 3 (12:08):
You're listening to John Cobelt on demand from KFI AM
six forty.
Speaker 2 (12:14):
Just had Michael mcchey on, the USC professor who has
done all this research about the about the price increases
in gasoline. Yeah, Newsom went to South Carolina to start
his presidential campaign and the price the prices there are.
Speaker 1 (12:30):
In the twos. It's like two eighty.
Speaker 2 (12:33):
In South Carolina, Michael Miche sent us a sheet of
things you should know.
Speaker 1 (12:44):
Uh.
Speaker 2 (12:44):
And ever since Gavin Newsom took over, California, gas prices
have increased by thirty nine percent.
Speaker 1 (12:54):
That's and.
Speaker 2 (12:56):
There were a lot of taxes. When he took over,
he added even more. The main state gas tax increased
by twenty nine percent. Our refining capacity has shrunk by
twenty one percent. After these next refineries close up. Drilling
(13:20):
permits have fallen ninety seven percent. California issues almost no
drilling permits. Our population is declined by about one and
a half percent, but spending group by sixty four percent.
(13:40):
These are all newsome numbers. We used to produce sixty
one percent of our oil needs, now less than twenty percent.
In state oil production in California has dropped eighty eight
percent over the last forty plus years. We are importing
(14:02):
the oil from Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Guyana and Ecuador.
Speaker 1 (14:06):
The oil is shipped.
Speaker 2 (14:09):
To Asia, like to South Korea, converted into gasoline and
then shipped across the Pacific. Takes thirty to forty days.
This is doing. It is creating more more greenhouse gas emissions,
not less, and it doesn't have any effect on the
climate either way. I've got several sheets here that I
(14:37):
could read to you if I had the time. All
of it would make you crazy. Tomorrow we're gonna have
Tony Strickland on. He's the state Senator from Huntington Beach,
and he's going to talk about this because he says
that every time the Republicans bring up a bill to
(15:03):
stop the gas tax increase, the Democrats kill it, and
we have a sixty five cent increase coming very soon,
and the Republicans are trying to stop it the legislature,
and the Democrats refuse to stop it. They want you
and I was reading just this week this was all
(15:25):
by design. This is no no conspiracy theory here. They
thought if they raised the prices high enough, then people
would flock to electric vehicles. And so that's what they're doing.
Even though the electric vehicle mandate has been struck down,
(15:45):
has been overruled by Congress, even though we don't have
much of a charging network, even though we don't have
an electrical grid to support electric cars, they're still intentionally
created policies to push gas prices now potentially.
Speaker 1 (16:06):
In the eight dollar range.
Speaker 2 (16:08):
And as Carl DeMaio pointed out a couple of weeks ago,
if that pipeline goes down, we have a major supply
pipeline that takes the oil to the refineries to turn
into gas. But there's so little oil in it it
may be shut off there's not enough pressure. Then we're
looking at ten dollars gas. If you are not calling
(16:34):
everybody in the legislature, I don't know what's wrong with you.
Newsom is in a state now trying to become president
in South Carolina where the gas prices are in the twos.
That's what he knows. The gas prices are in the
twos there. He knows the gas prices are in the fives.
Here headed for the eights. They're doing it on purpose
(16:56):
because you let them. Karen bass is purpose not issuing
permits to replace the homes of the Palisades. They're doing
it on purpose. They want to turn the Palisades into
a low income housing paradise for poor people, homeless people,
drug addicts, and criminals.
Speaker 1 (17:16):
They want to do it on purpose.
Speaker 2 (17:21):
We come back, We're going to talk to Alex Stone
TSA here in La no longer going to require you
to take your shoes off when you go through security.
And then we're also going to play Eric Leonard's report
on the origin of the Palisades fired.
Speaker 3 (17:37):
You're listening to John Cobels on demand from KFI AM
six forty.
Speaker 2 (17:42):
Coming up in the next segment, we're going to play
you Eric Leonard's report from NBC four yesterday about the
investigations into the Palisades fire origins. What are they honing
in on. Are they drifting away from the fireworks being
reignited as the number one theory as to what caused
(18:05):
the fire?
Speaker 1 (18:08):
If all I have to do is.
Speaker 2 (18:10):
Read you the list of agencies involved in this investigation,
and it gives you an idea of where they may
be heading. But we'll do that coming up in a
few minutes. First, one of the most irritating things going
through airport security, and then you have to take off
your shoes because one idiot terrorist twenty years ago had
(18:30):
a shoe bomb and then for twenty years, hundreds of
millions and billions of people had to take off their
shoes unless you got TSA pre check, which I got
I have that too. That's not very much money. I
don't know why everyone doesn't get it. It's like twenty
bucks a year. Yeah, and I'm shocked how long the
lines are.
Speaker 1 (18:50):
It's like, although.
Speaker 5 (18:51):
More and more people are getting that, we're getting a
glibal entry and so the lines are long.
Speaker 2 (18:55):
The lines are backing up. Let's got Alex Stone on here.
Let's see what the big revelation. Yeah, I noticed that
last week when I was flying. I was like, well,
there are a lot of people in the regular line.
I thought more people would have a pre check by
now that say, it's not that hard to get right,
But she came by lunch for twenty bucks, right, and
to not we'll take off your shoes until now and
not take out your laptop and your belt and all
(19:17):
that kind of stuff. But on the belt yes, and
the drinks yeah. Well, and so that's the thing of
what may be coming next that there are some thoughts
and maybe the liquids will change at some point too.
But there's an old generation that that in their twenties,
this is what they have had. This is all they've known,
is that you take off your shoes going through the
airport if you're not in a pre check line and
(19:38):
beginning immediately. There was no warning, no leaks that this
was coming, no real push for a change right now.
Christinome a short time ago, late this afternoon making this announcement.
Speaker 6 (19:48):
TSA will no longer require travelers to remove their shoes
when they go through our security checkpoints.
Speaker 2 (19:54):
We first got word last night that Seattle and some
others were beginning to say no shoes can remain on,
and then the memo had gone out TSA saying that
they were no longer going to do it. Christ You know,
I'm saying this is a number of things. One that
we've come along way with technology over the last twenty years,
almost twenty years that this has been in place. Two,
they've got more TSA officers to watch people who are
going through when something doesn't look quite right. And then
(20:17):
the real ID that everybody hated getting, but that that
secure is the identity of that person who is going
through that you know that they have had a secure
not really a background check, but they've had their documents
checked that they are who they say they are. It's
not couldn't be a fake ID that remember in the
days when they wouldn't scan it and they just look
at it and hand it back to you that they
feel like they're at a new spot. She also says
(20:39):
this is about being more welcoming in the.
Speaker 6 (20:40):
US, make people safe, but also provide some hospitality as well. Now,
this is especially important to streamline the process and look
at efficiencies that we can build in as we build
up for some big events that are going to be
coming here in the next twelve months here in the
United States of America. As you all know, right now
we have the Club Champion Chips going on. A lot
(21:01):
of travelers and visitors are coming into the country. But
next year we will also have the Olympics that will
be in the United States of America.
Speaker 2 (21:08):
Now, not to correct the secretary, but the Olympics are
not next year, they are in three years.
Speaker 1 (21:12):
I think we all panicked in LA when she said
next year, But you are correcting.
Speaker 2 (21:16):
Okay, I am, but but but the bottom line is
that the Olympics are coming and they want to make
it more open. But well, the World Cup is coming
next year and the Yea Bowl is after that year
in l Yeah, and there are a number of different
things that they want to try to streamline.
Speaker 1 (21:30):
Things.
Speaker 2 (21:31):
You would talk to Nico Melendez, a friend of KFI
formerly of the TSA, today his view on this, He says, yeah,
this is about that we've come a long way since
two thousand and six. By the way, the Richard Reid
American Airlines shoe bomber, that was in two thousand and one,
and the rule went into place in two thousand and six.
There was a five year period there when it happened.
(21:51):
Had that happen in two thousand and one, Yeah, it
was a long time, but it took them. It took
him five years, five years to come up with that rule.
But he says, yeah, we've come a long way. The
next thing he wants to know though, is probably even
more so than shoes, because you go through a magnetometer.
Speaker 1 (22:05):
Who knows what's in your shoes.
Speaker 2 (22:07):
But with liquids that we now have the technology to
say that's water, that's gasoline, that's breast milk without making
you drink it. Why are we still doing this three
point four ounce thing? He wants to know that.
Speaker 5 (22:17):
He told us, when are we going to get to
the elimination of the liquid band policy, because that was
another stopgap measure after the liquid bomb plot in two
thousand and six that continues to burden passengers. So there's
a lot of things that were done as stop gaps,
but things that have not all had remedies to them
just yet, and hopefully we get to that point where
some of these overburdens some regulations that are implemented on
(22:39):
passengers are eliminated.
Speaker 2 (22:40):
So thing if that worked out, then you could go
through a bottle of water or you know, a bigger
bottle of shampoo.
Speaker 1 (22:45):
Always that. But we're confiscating women's breast milk.
Speaker 2 (22:48):
Yeah, you remember, or take a sip of it, or
have a baby take a sip of it.
Speaker 1 (22:52):
I mean, it's just a weird finish some of the
agents have.
Speaker 2 (22:56):
Yeah, but people are happy about this today, even though
there are some questions about Yeah, but what if somebody
tries to come through, They it would be harder to catch.
But they say that we've got the technology and everything. Now,
this guy at the airport today.
Speaker 1 (23:08):
I'm habitually late selling. I'm running late, trying to put
my shoes back on. So taking away some of the
extras is a blessing. Yeah, this lady loves it. I
think the new policy is going to help the line
speed up a little. More family members won't have.
Speaker 3 (23:24):
To be taken off their shoes, so it'll be it'll
be a lot faster.
Speaker 1 (23:27):
It's gonna be something positive.
Speaker 2 (23:28):
So it's immediate. Seattle was first one where it was
really noticed. Other big airports. I don't know if Lax
is doing it today or Burbank or John Waynebody.
Speaker 1 (23:35):
Lax is on the list. I don't know when.
Speaker 2 (23:37):
They're starting pretty quick because it's as of today, but
they said it's got to kind of roll out, and
there will be times where they may say, hey, look
you got to do it today for whatever reason. But yeah,
so it's it's immediate after no announced it. All right,
very good, Alex, thank you, Thank you for coming on.
Alex Stone. Sip your breast milk. Okay, don't don't save
(23:58):
that bite right there. I don't want to hear that again.
Speaker 1 (24:00):
Eric isolated. All right, uh Era, let me see here?
What see?
Speaker 2 (24:07):
Everything comes back to that story. I sent Deborah's story
today and we really should go through it on the air.
It was written three years ago. It's on a blog
called lifehacker dot com. I don't know how I found
it today. I think I think I sometimes I google
and sometimes I google a phrase like why is everybody stupid?
I really do this, like late at night if I
(24:29):
can't sleep and I'm aggravated about something. It's like, it's like,
why is everybody stupid? And I found this article why
should you? Why you should assume everyone is stupid, lazy,
and possibly insane, including you? And I started thinking that.
I started thinking about just about everyone I know, certainly
everybody who works here. Oh yeah, and they fall into
(24:49):
one of those three categories, if not all three, and
uh lifehacker dot com and and and that there's there's
no reason that if one has a shoe bomb it
would take five years to ban shoes.
Speaker 1 (25:04):
Okay, that is crazy, and then twenty years to unban them.
Speaker 2 (25:08):
I was like, why did it take twenty years to
come up with a detection method so that somebody can't
hide an explosive in their shoe? Did?
Speaker 1 (25:19):
I didn't get that because they had to scan, so.
Speaker 2 (25:21):
You couldn't put an explosive in your pants pocket right,
or in your underwear right, or in your breast pocket,
on your shirt or shut jacket. So why is it
the shoes? They couldn't scan automatically as you're walking through
all right, more coming up we're gonna play the Eric
Leonard story about the origin of the Palisades fire. Which
(25:43):
way is the federal government maybe leaning? I hate to
put all these hedges in, but you'll see in the story.
Speaker 3 (25:48):
Why you're listening to John Cobels on demand from KFI
A six forty.
Speaker 2 (25:55):
Here's the story I've been wanting to play. God, there's
so much going on today and I didn't even get
to half of it. Eric Lanyard with the NBC four
six months from the fire, What did the officials believe
is the cause of the fire? Well, I'll listen to
this report, see what you can make out of it.
Speaker 7 (26:14):
This is the question everyone's been asking, how did it start?
And several of our law enforcement sources tell us they
believe they're very close to confirming the cause of the
January seventh fire, and they say there's still a possibility
someone could face criminal charges. Our contacts tell us a
lot of investigation still needs to be done and it's
too soon to share too much more information publicly. Many
(26:35):
theories have been explored in the last six months on
the possible causes. One by one. Almost all have been
ruled out, including the accidental amis ignition by utility lines.
Several law enforcement officials familiar with the case but not
authorized to speak publicly publicly say much of the inquiry
now centers on that much smaller brush fire that was
(26:55):
extinguished one week before the Palisades fire, a fire that
neighbors reported had been ignited by illegal fireworks set off
on New Year's Night. Now, you might remember, in late April,
the ATF conducted a series of burn tests in the
Palisades Highlands, very close to where both fires started. The
January seventh Palisades fire started during daylight hours, but these
(27:17):
tests were done between eleven PM and three am, That's
the timeframe when the January first fire started. The source
has told us the test fires were set in order
to gauge the sensitivity of some remote detection equipment that
would help narrow the timeline for when that New Year's
Eve fire ignited.
Speaker 1 (27:36):
So all of this suggests that.
Speaker 7 (27:38):
Investigators have found some definitive connection between those two fires,
But so far, the ATF has simply said the investigation
is ongoing. It's also declined to answer our specific questions,
and we're told it may be another month or two
before we get an official statement. On what all of
those arson investigators have found back to you guys, Hey.
Speaker 5 (27:57):
Eric, before we'll let you go, what have you learned
about the cause of the Eton fire. There seemed to
be quite a bit of evidence out in public that
the electrical lines and the foothills where they source it
all are the sparks but the flames.
Speaker 7 (28:07):
Right, so certainly a very different kind of mystery out
in Altadena, where authorities said there's little doubt the origin
of that fire was directly below some electrical lines and
towers in Eaton Canyon. The question there that fire investigators
have been looking at, along with state regulators and attorneys
representing fire victims, has been trying to answer exactly which
electrical line There are several that run through Eaton Canyon,
(28:30):
including some deadlines that investigators suspect could have been momentarily
re energized in the extreme winds that night and sparked.
So far, no official conclusions there either. Authorities tell us
it remains under investigation as well.
Speaker 2 (28:47):
In the written report that Eric filed with the NBC four,
it says experts told NBC News that the cold ignition
theory that something still smoldering the January first fire reignited
on the seventh was not impossible, but was an unlikely
could be a difficult case to prosecute in court, and
(29:15):
it looks as if there could possibly be criminal charges.
And I wondered, did that mean of the people who
started the original fire on the first that reignited on
the seventh, because yeah, that would be tough to get
a conviction on that, or are they talking about some
entirely different people. They've had not only the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
(29:40):
and Firearms and Explosives leading the investigation, but they have
the Fire Department's arsen Section, the LAPD's Major Crimes Division,
And I wonder, because you have to wonder about an
arson guy, a crazy person or what I thought right away?
(30:01):
And I still think just a bomb, just one of
the many homeless people, because quite a few of them
live up in the hills in the wilds throughout the
Santa Monica Mountains. And I also thought that if it
was some crazy guy living in the wilds and he
(30:25):
started the fire, and maybe he was motivated because of
the winds and the warnings, that this would be fun
to do it and see what happens if officials here
would ever admit to it. I'm glad the federal government's involved.
You're more likely to get the truth out of the
ATF than you are from any California agency. Certainly anything
(30:45):
that Newsom or Bass have any oversight or connection to,
because what I always was suspicious of is like, well,
what if it's if it's a homeless guy, would they
ever admit that? And would they admit it? Well, everybody
was upset and paying attention. Now we're getting six months
later and the emotions have faded, the interest has faded,
(31:10):
and so they could they could release a story about
a homeless guy and wouldn't get the same reaction as
we found out that week, because you know, Bass then
really would be over if it was a homeless person
that started the fire who somehow didn't make it into
her insight safe program. They never admitted if it was
(31:33):
a homeless person who burned the ten freeway. No, they
never did, and clearly someone but they made that go
away fast. Yeah, that's that's why I did Bass and
Newsome make stuff go away for again. You compare the
Bass and her response to the fire with the Bass
(31:55):
who goes to MacArthur Park and loses her mind and
starts screaming and shouting, Get everybody. That's what she cares about.
She cares about the illegal aliens getting rounded up. She
doesn't care about the Palisades residents. You are not the
right demographic. I am convinced now that she and the
city council want to make the Palisades a low income
(32:18):
high rise apartment heaven, that that's what they're hoping for.
And if Scott Wiener's bill passes in Sacramento, than any
any lot that is zoned for single family housing, anyone
could sell their lot to a developer and turn it
into a low income apartment building. That's what may be coming.
(32:38):
And the Palisades could be entirely low income housing. And
that's why bass is showing such little interest. And that's
why you can't get a permit. That's why the repairs
or the rebuild is going so slowly. They don't want
people to rebuild. They want to try their their great
social experiment. Ad a lot we're going to do tomorrow.
(33:02):
We're gonna have Tony stricklan on about how the Democrats
are stopping every bill that would limit the gas tax increase. Also,
Katie Grimes is gonna come on about Newsom's bizarre press conference,
how all these idiot politicians were praising Newsom for his
work on the fire and it looked like a launching
(33:25):
pad to go to Sacramento, South Carolina, which he did today.
And he's campaigning more or less in South Carolina, holding
meetings with Democratic officials because that's one of the earliest primaries.
So he's starting now three and a half years in advance.
He's lost in Bass, has lost interest in rebuilding the Palisades,
(33:45):
Newsom has lost interest in the entire state. That'll come
up again tomorrow. We got Michael Krozer and then we're
gonna Mark Thompson in for Tim Conway. Krozer is live
in the twenty four hour calf I knew. Hey, you've
been listening to The John Cobalt Show podcast. You can
always hear the show live on KFI Am six forty
(34:06):
from one to four pm every Monday through Friday, and
of course anytime on demand on the iHeartRadio app.
Can't. I am six forty.
Speaker 2 (00:02):
You're listening to the John Cobelt Podcast on the iHeartRadio app.
Speaker 1 (00:06):
Every day.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
We do this from one until four o'clock and every
day after four o'clock. If you miss anything, go to
the podcast John Cobelt Show on demand on the iHeart app.
We had Rick Caruso on at the top of the
two o'clock hour if you missed it. That's why the
podcast exists, so you could listen to the two o'clock
hour Rick Caruso. Because Rick is getting frustrated with Bass
(00:33):
and city Hall and the bureaucracy. And I'm saying this,
I don't think Bath cares at all if the Palisades
ever gets rebuilt. I think that whole crowd in her
administration and the city council would love to build affordable
housing for poor people and homeless people and drug addicts.
Speaker 1 (00:55):
I think that's the future they see.
Speaker 2 (00:58):
So they're going to tie up Palisades residents and keep
them from rebuilding until the Palisades people give up and
then sell to developers. And with Scott Wiener's new bill
and Sacramento that he's pushing, all these residential lots could
be turned into low income apartment buildings. I think that's
(01:18):
Bass's vision and nuisance vision as well. We'll be on
top of this over the next coming days and weeks.
I want to get Michael mcche on here. Michael mcche
is the USC professor and we've talked to him several
times this year. He went through fifty years of gas
price statistics here in California and concluded that California's always
(01:39):
had the most expensive gas and it's almost always been
self inflicted by government to taxes and regulations, almost never
has anything to do with price gouging by the oil companies.
And secondly, he's discovered that with two refineries closing and
a new sixty five cent price increase coming from CARB
(02:01):
for a low carbon field standard, we're looking at gas
prices exceeding maybe eight point fifty within the next year
and a half. He wrote this great piece in the
Los Angeles Times in the last week, and I wanted
to have him come on and talk about it. Michael, welcome,
Thank you.
Speaker 3 (02:20):
John.
Speaker 4 (02:21):
Good to be back with you.
Speaker 1 (02:22):
I will say it seems like more and more of.
Speaker 2 (02:27):
The rest of the media has picked up on your
writings and research and is affirming and publishing what you
have been warning about. And I don't see any credible
pushback against your prediction that the gas prices may be
exceeding eight dollars not too far down the road.
Speaker 4 (02:48):
Well, it's kind of hard to push back on the
statistics and the data and the facts. You know, in California,
by the way, that eight forty three was the kind
of the worst case scenario, and that assumes that we
can't replace the gasoline we're losing as a result of
the two refineries closing. Right, So if you look at
(03:09):
the two refineries that are closing from twenty twenty three
to twenty twenty six April, we will have lost close
to twenty one percent of our in state refinery production
of gasoline. Okay, So the question then becomes, you know,
where are you going to get the gasoline? And that's
(03:32):
you know, at least six to ten million gallons a day,
depending on how you want to calculate it. And so
the issue then becomes, how are you going to replace it?
Where you're going to get the gasoline from, and how
much is it really going to cost the California consumer. So,
you know, this is the situation that the state is confronting.
Speaker 2 (03:55):
Now, is it true that that Newsome has been holding
meetings on this the legislature has been warned.
Speaker 1 (04:03):
Carl Demyo was claiming that.
Speaker 2 (04:05):
A couple of weeks ago that the oil companies sent
in executives and briefed legislators, briefed Newsome and said, hey,
this is real. These refineries really are closing. In fact,
we might be closing down a pipeline because there's not
enough oil in it. They can't keep the pressure going.
Speaker 4 (04:25):
What are you hearing, Yeah, well I've heard the same thing. Uh,
and it's and it's a pretty serious thing. I mean,
I think I think Gavin's in South Carolina. Uh was
there yesterday? Hopefully he took a look at the South
Carolina gasoline prices at two dollars and eighty cents a
gallon and ask himself why is it so high in California?
So perhaps he had to wherewithal to do that. But
(04:48):
but let's let's, you know, get back to you know,
what's happening in California. Are in state production?
Speaker 5 (04:55):
Uh?
Speaker 4 (04:55):
Now, we have anywhere from the fifth to the seventh
largest oil reserves in the country underneath our feet. In California,
our oil production has fallen by eighty eight percent over
the last thirty years.
Speaker 1 (05:10):
Eighty eight percent.
Speaker 4 (05:12):
Eighty eight percent absolutely falling through the ground. So, in
other words, if you look at nineteen eighty two, forty
years ago plus, we produce sixty one percent of our
oil for our needs in the state of California, which
meant we imported, you know, thirty nine percent. The most
recent estimates in this sort of anecdotal when you're talking
(05:34):
to the people, is that this year today, we're producing
less than twenty percent of our oil in state, which
means we're gonna have to import at least eighty percent. Right,
so the full decline over forty year period's been eighty
eight percent. But the problem that you're going to have
with that, it's a real serious problem, is that if
(05:56):
you're producing it less than twenty percent, chances are you
don't have enough oil going into the pipeline to even
operate it. You need pressure in the pipeline to move
the oil through it. So if you're not producing enough
oil in state to move it through an in state
pipeline to an in state refineries, that's a big problem.
(06:20):
And so if you lose that pipeline. So you need
two things. You need pressure to move it through, and
the pipelines run on an economic model. The more barrels
of oil you pump through it, the more profitable the pipeline. Right,
So if you're not pumping through a lot of oil,
you have low pressure and low economies of scale, the
(06:41):
pipeline will shut down. It's just pure engineering and economics
at this point. So if that pipeline shuts down, then
you've got a bigger problem in terms of getting oil
to the refineries, which means you're probably going to be
flooding the freeways with trucks and tankers. Big, big problem. Well, Governork,
(07:05):
to my knowledge, you know, to my knowledge, the governor
has been briefed on that.
Speaker 2 (07:10):
He's been briefed. Well, something has to be done. Some
adult has to reverse the direction we're going in here.
Speaker 4 (07:20):
Well you would think. So, you know, when you're looking
at a twenty one percent decline in in state production,
now you know the narrative now is, oh, don't worry
about it. The markets will compensate for that, will find
the oil someplace else, and the world will be perfect. Okay, great,
you're going to be tanking it in on these big
maritime tankers, probably someplace from Asia most likely, or you're
(07:42):
going to circumvent that Jones act like California has done
and bring it in from the Bahamas, which is actually
American gasoline shipped to the Bahamas. You change the flag,
and then you bring it into California as an import.
So you know, what's the net effect on greenhouse emissions
in the climate if indeed you're you're just what.
Speaker 2 (08:05):
I understand that all this, all this is going to
make it make more greenhouse emissions.
Speaker 1 (08:11):
Whatever they think, the problem is, it's all going to
get worse. So why do this?
Speaker 4 (08:17):
Yeah, and it's it's sort of what we said it
was offshoring, right, you're going to offshore this this issue,
but you're not. You're not curing it. You're not even
Actually I think you know, I'm not an a climatologist,
but it would seem to me that by using these
offshore refineries and using all these tankers, you're contributing to
more greenhouse emissions.
Speaker 2 (08:37):
You've written you've written that in your story in the
La Times that we're sitting on one of the largest
untapped reserves in the world. It's called the Monterey Shale,
but we import most of our oil from a rock
Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Guyana, and Ecuador. We have in the
past imported it from Russia and Venezuela, and then uh
(08:58):
we send it to be refined. Mind and then the
tanks take thirty to forty days to cross the ocean
from Asia.
Speaker 1 (09:07):
That's that's an insane.
Speaker 2 (09:09):
System, very costly, and it produces way more in emissions.
Speaker 4 (09:15):
You know, I think when you look at the state's
natural resources and the abundance of that, and the fact
that we also have when you count up all the
California debt, including the unfunded pension liability, we're sitting at
one point six trillion dollars in debt in the state.
Thirty nine percent of our GDP is debt. And you
sort of look at yourself and you look at these
(09:36):
consumer prices and you say, well, gee, isn't isn't there
like a better way of addressing this that it makes
more economic sense for the hard working people in California.
And that's simply you know what I'm asking you know,
as you know, as an individual, you know, as somebody
who studies this industry, there must be a more cogent
(09:57):
way of going about this, and apparently you know there
are many different ways of going about it that I
think would resolve in a steady supply of fuel, responsible
environmental stewardship, and a reduction and gasoline prices. I mean,
this is insane, and they're.
Speaker 5 (10:15):
Going to go up.
Speaker 2 (10:16):
Let me ask you one more thing, because then I
got to get to the news. There's two more refineries
scheduled to close in the coming months.
Speaker 1 (10:24):
We'll up sixty six in Los Angeles Bellero in the
Bay Area.
Speaker 2 (10:28):
This is two hundred and eighty four thousand barrels of
daily production according to your article here. Is there anything
that can be done to keep these two refineries.
Speaker 4 (10:37):
Going doubtful because they've already taken significant financial write offs
of billions of dollars against those refineries, and Valero in
particular has made public statements that they're out of the
state and they are closing it down. So the best
we might be able to do is use some of
those refinery facilities for storage tanks for imported gas.
Speaker 2 (11:00):
So this is a done deal. There's nothing we can do.
We're not going to get this refining capacity back. There's
no emergency action that Newsom could take to reverse the situation.
Speaker 4 (11:13):
As far as I know, it would be very difficult
for him to invoke emergency actions in this area. Now
he might be able to do it. I'm not a
you know, a lawyer in that regard or at all,
but I think it would be very difficult for him
to compel These refineries sustain the state under current operating conditions.
And again, they're also losing money. When the price accruent
(11:37):
is this low, and it's been seventeen percent lower under
Trump than it was previously, the margins are going to
be low. So the refiners are struggling either way. So
you know, they're given the regulatory environment, the costs, and
all the other factors that we've talked about, including the
(11:57):
political bias against the refiners.
Speaker 2 (12:00):
Apparently this is crazy. Michael mchee, USC professor, thank you
for coming on.
Speaker 4 (12:05):
I really appreciate it. John, have a great day.
Speaker 1 (12:07):
All right.
Speaker 3 (12:08):
You're listening to John Cobelt on demand from KFI AM
six forty.
Speaker 2 (12:14):
Just had Michael mcchey on, the USC professor who has
done all this research about the about the price increases
in gasoline. Yeah, Newsom went to South Carolina to start
his presidential campaign and the price the prices there are.
Speaker 1 (12:30):
In the twos. It's like two eighty.
Speaker 2 (12:33):
In South Carolina, Michael Miche sent us a sheet of
things you should know.
Speaker 1 (12:44):
Uh.
Speaker 2 (12:44):
And ever since Gavin Newsom took over, California, gas prices
have increased by thirty nine percent.
Speaker 1 (12:54):
That's and.
Speaker 2 (12:56):
There were a lot of taxes. When he took over,
he added even more. The main state gas tax increased
by twenty nine percent. Our refining capacity has shrunk by
twenty one percent. After these next refineries close up. Drilling
(13:20):
permits have fallen ninety seven percent. California issues almost no
drilling permits. Our population is declined by about one and
a half percent, but spending group by sixty four percent.
(13:40):
These are all newsome numbers. We used to produce sixty
one percent of our oil needs, now less than twenty percent.
In state oil production in California has dropped eighty eight
percent over the last forty plus years. We are importing
(14:02):
the oil from Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Guyana and Ecuador.
Speaker 1 (14:06):
The oil is shipped.
Speaker 2 (14:09):
To Asia, like to South Korea, converted into gasoline and
then shipped across the Pacific. Takes thirty to forty days.
This is doing. It is creating more more greenhouse gas emissions,
not less, and it doesn't have any effect on the
climate either way. I've got several sheets here that I
(14:37):
could read to you if I had the time. All
of it would make you crazy. Tomorrow we're gonna have
Tony Strickland on. He's the state Senator from Huntington Beach,
and he's going to talk about this because he says
that every time the Republicans bring up a bill to
(15:03):
stop the gas tax increase, the Democrats kill it, and
we have a sixty five cent increase coming very soon,
and the Republicans are trying to stop it the legislature,
and the Democrats refuse to stop it. They want you
and I was reading just this week this was all
(15:25):
by design. This is no no conspiracy theory here. They
thought if they raised the prices high enough, then people
would flock to electric vehicles. And so that's what they're doing.
Even though the electric vehicle mandate has been struck down,
(15:45):
has been overruled by Congress, even though we don't have
much of a charging network, even though we don't have
an electrical grid to support electric cars, they're still intentionally
created policies to push gas prices now potentially.
Speaker 1 (16:06):
In the eight dollar range.
Speaker 2 (16:08):
And as Carl DeMaio pointed out a couple of weeks ago,
if that pipeline goes down, we have a major supply
pipeline that takes the oil to the refineries to turn
into gas. But there's so little oil in it it
may be shut off there's not enough pressure. Then we're
looking at ten dollars gas. If you are not calling
(16:34):
everybody in the legislature, I don't know what's wrong with you.
Newsom is in a state now trying to become president
in South Carolina where the gas prices are in the twos.
That's what he knows. The gas prices are in the
twos there. He knows the gas prices are in the fives.
Here headed for the eights. They're doing it on purpose
(16:56):
because you let them. Karen bass is purpose not issuing
permits to replace the homes of the Palisades. They're doing
it on purpose. They want to turn the Palisades into
a low income housing paradise for poor people, homeless people,
drug addicts, and criminals.
Speaker 1 (17:16):
They want to do it on purpose.
Speaker 2 (17:21):
We come back, We're going to talk to Alex Stone
TSA here in La no longer going to require you
to take your shoes off when you go through security.
And then we're also going to play Eric Leonard's report
on the origin of the Palisades fired.
Speaker 3 (17:37):
You're listening to John Cobels on demand from KFI AM
six forty.
Speaker 2 (17:42):
Coming up in the next segment, we're going to play
you Eric Leonard's report from NBC four yesterday about the
investigations into the Palisades fire origins. What are they honing
in on. Are they drifting away from the fireworks being
reignited as the number one theory as to what caused
(18:05):
the fire?
Speaker 1 (18:08):
If all I have to do is.
Speaker 2 (18:10):
Read you the list of agencies involved in this investigation,
and it gives you an idea of where they may
be heading. But we'll do that coming up in a
few minutes. First, one of the most irritating things going
through airport security, and then you have to take off
your shoes because one idiot terrorist twenty years ago had
(18:30):
a shoe bomb and then for twenty years, hundreds of
millions and billions of people had to take off their
shoes unless you got TSA pre check, which I got
I have that too. That's not very much money. I
don't know why everyone doesn't get it. It's like twenty
bucks a year. Yeah, and I'm shocked how long the
lines are.
Speaker 1 (18:50):
It's like, although.
Speaker 5 (18:51):
More and more people are getting that, we're getting a
glibal entry and so the lines are long.
Speaker 2 (18:55):
The lines are backing up. Let's got Alex Stone on here.
Let's see what the big revelation. Yeah, I noticed that
last week when I was flying. I was like, well,
there are a lot of people in the regular line.
I thought more people would have a pre check by
now that say, it's not that hard to get right,
But she came by lunch for twenty bucks, right, and
to not we'll take off your shoes until now and
not take out your laptop and your belt and all
(19:17):
that kind of stuff. But on the belt yes, and
the drinks yeah. Well, and so that's the thing of
what may be coming next that there are some thoughts
and maybe the liquids will change at some point too.
But there's an old generation that that in their twenties,
this is what they have had. This is all they've known,
is that you take off your shoes going through the
airport if you're not in a pre check line and
(19:38):
beginning immediately. There was no warning, no leaks that this
was coming, no real push for a change right now.
Christinome a short time ago, late this afternoon making this announcement.
Speaker 6 (19:48):
TSA will no longer require travelers to remove their shoes
when they go through our security checkpoints.
Speaker 2 (19:54):
We first got word last night that Seattle and some
others were beginning to say no shoes can remain on,
and then the memo had gone out TSA saying that
they were no longer going to do it. Christ You know,
I'm saying this is a number of things. One that
we've come along way with technology over the last twenty years,
almost twenty years that this has been in place. Two,
they've got more TSA officers to watch people who are
going through when something doesn't look quite right. And then
(20:17):
the real ID that everybody hated getting, but that that
secure is the identity of that person who is going
through that you know that they have had a secure
not really a background check, but they've had their documents
checked that they are who they say they are. It's
not couldn't be a fake ID that remember in the
days when they wouldn't scan it and they just look
at it and hand it back to you that they
feel like they're at a new spot. She also says
(20:39):
this is about being more welcoming in the.
Speaker 6 (20:40):
US, make people safe, but also provide some hospitality as well. Now,
this is especially important to streamline the process and look
at efficiencies that we can build in as we build
up for some big events that are going to be
coming here in the next twelve months here in the
United States of America. As you all know, right now
we have the Club Champion Chips going on. A lot
(21:01):
of travelers and visitors are coming into the country. But
next year we will also have the Olympics that will
be in the United States of America.
Speaker 2 (21:08):
Now, not to correct the secretary, but the Olympics are
not next year, they are in three years.
Speaker 1 (21:12):
I think we all panicked in LA when she said
next year, But you are correcting.
Speaker 2 (21:16):
Okay, I am, but but but the bottom line is
that the Olympics are coming and they want to make
it more open. But well, the World Cup is coming
next year and the Yea Bowl is after that year
in l Yeah, and there are a number of different
things that they want to try to streamline.
Speaker 1 (21:30):
Things.
Speaker 2 (21:31):
You would talk to Nico Melendez, a friend of KFI
formerly of the TSA, today his view on this, He says, yeah,
this is about that we've come a long way since
two thousand and six. By the way, the Richard Reid
American Airlines shoe bomber, that was in two thousand and one,
and the rule went into place in two thousand and six.
There was a five year period there when it happened.
(21:51):
Had that happen in two thousand and one, Yeah, it
was a long time, but it took them. It took
him five years, five years to come up with that rule.
But he says, yeah, we've come a long way. The
next thing he wants to know though, is probably even
more so than shoes, because you go through a magnetometer.
Speaker 1 (22:05):
Who knows what's in your shoes.
Speaker 2 (22:07):
But with liquids that we now have the technology to
say that's water, that's gasoline, that's breast milk without making
you drink it. Why are we still doing this three
point four ounce thing? He wants to know that.
Speaker 5 (22:17):
He told us, when are we going to get to
the elimination of the liquid band policy, because that was
another stopgap measure after the liquid bomb plot in two
thousand and six that continues to burden passengers. So there's
a lot of things that were done as stop gaps,
but things that have not all had remedies to them
just yet, and hopefully we get to that point where
some of these overburdens some regulations that are implemented on
(22:39):
passengers are eliminated.
Speaker 2 (22:40):
So thing if that worked out, then you could go
through a bottle of water or you know, a bigger
bottle of shampoo.
Speaker 1 (22:45):
Always that. But we're confiscating women's breast milk.
Speaker 2 (22:48):
Yeah, you remember, or take a sip of it, or
have a baby take a sip of it.
Speaker 1 (22:52):
I mean, it's just a weird finish some of the
agents have.
Speaker 2 (22:56):
Yeah, but people are happy about this today, even though
there are some questions about Yeah, but what if somebody
tries to come through, They it would be harder to catch.
But they say that we've got the technology and everything. Now,
this guy at the airport today.
Speaker 1 (23:08):
I'm habitually late selling. I'm running late, trying to put
my shoes back on. So taking away some of the
extras is a blessing. Yeah, this lady loves it. I
think the new policy is going to help the line
speed up a little. More family members won't have.
Speaker 3 (23:24):
To be taken off their shoes, so it'll be it'll
be a lot faster.
Speaker 1 (23:27):
It's gonna be something positive.
Speaker 2 (23:28):
So it's immediate. Seattle was first one where it was
really noticed. Other big airports. I don't know if Lax
is doing it today or Burbank or John Waynebody.
Speaker 1 (23:35):
Lax is on the list. I don't know when.
Speaker 2 (23:37):
They're starting pretty quick because it's as of today, but
they said it's got to kind of roll out, and
there will be times where they may say, hey, look
you got to do it today for whatever reason. But yeah,
so it's it's immediate after no announced it. All right,
very good, Alex, thank you, Thank you for coming on.
Alex Stone. Sip your breast milk. Okay, don't don't save
(23:58):
that bite right there. I don't want to hear that again.
Speaker 1 (24:00):
Eric isolated. All right, uh Era, let me see here?
What see?
Speaker 2 (24:07):
Everything comes back to that story. I sent Deborah's story
today and we really should go through it on the air.
It was written three years ago. It's on a blog
called lifehacker dot com. I don't know how I found
it today. I think I think I sometimes I google
and sometimes I google a phrase like why is everybody stupid?
I really do this, like late at night if I
(24:29):
can't sleep and I'm aggravated about something. It's like, it's like,
why is everybody stupid? And I found this article why
should you? Why you should assume everyone is stupid, lazy,
and possibly insane, including you? And I started thinking that.
I started thinking about just about everyone I know, certainly
everybody who works here. Oh yeah, and they fall into
(24:49):
one of those three categories, if not all three, and
uh lifehacker dot com and and and that there's there's
no reason that if one has a shoe bomb it
would take five years to ban shoes.
Speaker 1 (25:04):
Okay, that is crazy, and then twenty years to unban them.
Speaker 2 (25:08):
I was like, why did it take twenty years to
come up with a detection method so that somebody can't
hide an explosive in their shoe? Did?
Speaker 1 (25:19):
I didn't get that because they had to scan, so.
Speaker 2 (25:21):
You couldn't put an explosive in your pants pocket right,
or in your underwear right, or in your breast pocket,
on your shirt or shut jacket. So why is it
the shoes? They couldn't scan automatically as you're walking through
all right, more coming up we're gonna play the Eric
Leonard story about the origin of the Palisades fire. Which
(25:43):
way is the federal government maybe leaning? I hate to
put all these hedges in, but you'll see in the story.
Speaker 3 (25:48):
Why you're listening to John Cobels on demand from KFI
A six forty.
Speaker 2 (25:55):
Here's the story I've been wanting to play. God, there's
so much going on today and I didn't even get
to half of it. Eric Lanyard with the NBC four
six months from the fire, What did the officials believe
is the cause of the fire? Well, I'll listen to
this report, see what you can make out of it.
Speaker 7 (26:14):
This is the question everyone's been asking, how did it start?
And several of our law enforcement sources tell us they
believe they're very close to confirming the cause of the
January seventh fire, and they say there's still a possibility
someone could face criminal charges. Our contacts tell us a
lot of investigation still needs to be done and it's
too soon to share too much more information publicly. Many
(26:35):
theories have been explored in the last six months on
the possible causes. One by one. Almost all have been
ruled out, including the accidental amis ignition by utility lines.
Several law enforcement officials familiar with the case but not
authorized to speak publicly publicly say much of the inquiry
now centers on that much smaller brush fire that was
(26:55):
extinguished one week before the Palisades fire, a fire that
neighbors reported had been ignited by illegal fireworks set off
on New Year's Night. Now, you might remember, in late April,
the ATF conducted a series of burn tests in the
Palisades Highlands, very close to where both fires started. The
January seventh Palisades fire started during daylight hours, but these
(27:17):
tests were done between eleven PM and three am, That's
the timeframe when the January first fire started. The source
has told us the test fires were set in order
to gauge the sensitivity of some remote detection equipment that
would help narrow the timeline for when that New Year's
Eve fire ignited.
Speaker 1 (27:36):
So all of this suggests that.
Speaker 7 (27:38):
Investigators have found some definitive connection between those two fires,
But so far, the ATF has simply said the investigation
is ongoing. It's also declined to answer our specific questions,
and we're told it may be another month or two
before we get an official statement. On what all of
those arson investigators have found back to you guys, Hey.
Speaker 5 (27:57):
Eric, before we'll let you go, what have you learned
about the cause of the Eton fire. There seemed to
be quite a bit of evidence out in public that
the electrical lines and the foothills where they source it
all are the sparks but the flames.
Speaker 7 (28:07):
Right, so certainly a very different kind of mystery out
in Altadena, where authorities said there's little doubt the origin
of that fire was directly below some electrical lines and
towers in Eaton Canyon. The question there that fire investigators
have been looking at, along with state regulators and attorneys
representing fire victims, has been trying to answer exactly which
electrical line There are several that run through Eaton Canyon,
(28:30):
including some deadlines that investigators suspect could have been momentarily
re energized in the extreme winds that night and sparked.
So far, no official conclusions there either. Authorities tell us
it remains under investigation as well.
Speaker 2 (28:47):
In the written report that Eric filed with the NBC four,
it says experts told NBC News that the cold ignition
theory that something still smoldering the January first fire reignited
on the seventh was not impossible, but was an unlikely
could be a difficult case to prosecute in court, and
(29:15):
it looks as if there could possibly be criminal charges.
And I wondered, did that mean of the people who
started the original fire on the first that reignited on
the seventh, because yeah, that would be tough to get
a conviction on that, or are they talking about some
entirely different people. They've had not only the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
(29:40):
and Firearms and Explosives leading the investigation, but they have
the Fire Department's arsen Section, the LAPD's Major Crimes Division,
And I wonder, because you have to wonder about an
arson guy, a crazy person or what I thought right away?
(30:01):
And I still think just a bomb, just one of
the many homeless people, because quite a few of them
live up in the hills in the wilds throughout the
Santa Monica Mountains. And I also thought that if it
was some crazy guy living in the wilds and he
(30:25):
started the fire, and maybe he was motivated because of
the winds and the warnings, that this would be fun
to do it and see what happens if officials here
would ever admit to it. I'm glad the federal government's involved.
You're more likely to get the truth out of the
ATF than you are from any California agency. Certainly anything
(30:45):
that Newsom or Bass have any oversight or connection to,
because what I always was suspicious of is like, well,
what if it's if it's a homeless guy, would they
ever admit that? And would they admit it? Well, everybody
was upset and paying attention. Now we're getting six months
later and the emotions have faded, the interest has faded,
(31:10):
and so they could they could release a story about
a homeless guy and wouldn't get the same reaction as
we found out that week, because you know, Bass then
really would be over if it was a homeless person
that started the fire who somehow didn't make it into
her insight safe program. They never admitted if it was
(31:33):
a homeless person who burned the ten freeway. No, they
never did, and clearly someone but they made that go
away fast. Yeah, that's that's why I did Bass and
Newsome make stuff go away for again. You compare the
Bass and her response to the fire with the Bass
(31:55):
who goes to MacArthur Park and loses her mind and
starts screaming and shouting, Get everybody. That's what she cares about.
She cares about the illegal aliens getting rounded up. She
doesn't care about the Palisades residents. You are not the
right demographic. I am convinced now that she and the
city council want to make the Palisades a low income
(32:18):
high rise apartment heaven, that that's what they're hoping for.
And if Scott Wiener's bill passes in Sacramento, than any
any lot that is zoned for single family housing, anyone
could sell their lot to a developer and turn it
into a low income apartment building. That's what may be coming.
(32:38):
And the Palisades could be entirely low income housing. And
that's why bass is showing such little interest. And that's
why you can't get a permit. That's why the repairs
or the rebuild is going so slowly. They don't want
people to rebuild. They want to try their their great
social experiment. Ad a lot we're going to do tomorrow.
(33:02):
We're gonna have Tony stricklan on about how the Democrats
are stopping every bill that would limit the gas tax increase. Also,
Katie Grimes is gonna come on about Newsom's bizarre press conference,
how all these idiot politicians were praising Newsom for his
work on the fire and it looked like a launching
(33:25):
pad to go to Sacramento, South Carolina, which he did today.
And he's campaigning more or less in South Carolina, holding
meetings with Democratic officials because that's one of the earliest primaries.
So he's starting now three and a half years in advance.
He's lost in Bass, has lost interest in rebuilding the Palisades,
(33:45):
Newsom has lost interest in the entire state. That'll come
up again tomorrow. We got Michael Krozer and then we're
gonna Mark Thompson in for Tim Conway. Krozer is live
in the twenty four hour calf I knew. Hey, you've
been listening to The John Cobalt Show podcast. You can
always hear the show live on KFI Am six forty
(34:06):
from one to four pm every Monday through Friday, and
of course anytime on demand on the iHeartRadio app.
The John Kobylt Show News
Host
John Kobylt
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.