All Episodes

August 26, 2025 37 mins

The John Kobylt Show Hour 1 (08/26) - Lou Penrose fills in for John. Mike Columbo comes on the show to talk about California Republicans filing a lawsuit with the California Supreme Court as Pres. Trump is threatening to sue as well over redistricting. More on the lawsuit filed by California Republicans over redistricting. A man was arrested for flag burning. 

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 find AM six forty.

Speaker 2 (00:02):
You're listening to the John Cobel podcast on the iHeartRadio apps.

Speaker 1 (00:06):
Lou Penrose sitting in for co Belt.

Speaker 3 (00:08):
All this week NonStop talk about California and redistricting from
the White House. President Trump today in the Oval Office,
suggested that he might challenge California's newly redrawn congressional maps. Now,
as you recall, last week, the state Legislature, the Assembly

(00:28):
of the Senate, and then the governor all made it
so that there will be a special election in November
to let voters approve jerry mandered congressional seats that lean
Democrat on purpose for the purposes of electing more Democrats
to the House of Representatives, to block President Trump in

(00:49):
his second two years, or start the impeachment process.

Speaker 1 (00:53):
Here's President Trump.

Speaker 4 (00:54):
Well, I think I'm going to be filing a lawsuit
pretty soon, and I think we're going to be verse success.
We're going to be following it through the Department of Justice.

Speaker 5 (01:03):
That's going to happen.

Speaker 1 (01:04):
Mike Columbo's a partner with the Dylan Law Group. He
joins us.

Speaker 3 (01:07):
Now where there's so many talk of suits and they
go back and forth whether or not this is constitutional
what the governor is doing, whether or not California can
do this. Now the President weighs in, he wants to
sue bring us up to speed on the legalities of
what is possible.

Speaker 5 (01:25):
Good morning, Leuid, Thanks for having me on the show today.
If we have to talk about that, So yeah, I
represented a group of people, legislators and others last week
who filed the first lawsuit. What we were saying then
is that the legislation that the California Legislature was ramming

(01:46):
through to make this.

Speaker 6 (01:47):
Happen was breaking the rules.

Speaker 5 (01:50):
In the constitution that govern how the legislature.

Speaker 6 (01:54):
Can even make laws.

Speaker 5 (01:55):
And specifically, there's a piece of the constitution that the
people put there that says if the legislature is going
to consider a new law, they got to put it
on the books for thirty days before they can do anything.
Next the people a chance to see what they're up to. Right,
And last week, if you guys saw they brought this thing.
They published it on Monday, and they immediately went to

(02:19):
committee and started working on it, and it was it
was law by Thursday. So as soon as they brought that,
they brought that legislation into the Assembly on.

Speaker 6 (02:31):
Monday.

Speaker 5 (02:31):
We were in court that night to say that they
had they violated this constitutional law which gives the people
a right to see what the legislature is doing.

Speaker 6 (02:43):
So that was last week.

Speaker 5 (02:44):
Unfortunately, let's say.

Speaker 3 (02:45):
With that, let's stick suit with that for a minute,
because that's striking to me that any judge, even even
if a left leaning or a progressive thinking judge, you know,
whether or not you utilize gimmickry in the legislative process, says,
you know, ran through piece of legislation that has to
do with I don't know, right, turn on red or something.

(03:06):
This is redistricting, reapportionment. So certainly a thirty day process,
a thirty dagh review period.

Speaker 1 (03:13):
Would be necessary.

Speaker 3 (03:14):
How can a judge possibly come to the decision that
now this is all right and proper?

Speaker 6 (03:20):
Well, you know, your your guess is as good as mine.

Speaker 5 (03:24):
Unfortunately, the decision we got explained it in a single sentence,
which which ended with the phrase relief is not available
at this time, and so we don't have a real
explanation of what the California Supreme Court was was thinking.

Speaker 6 (03:42):
You know, there's when you when you introduce a new.

Speaker 5 (03:44):
Law, there's really only you know two points of time
that that that really matter, right, It's it's it's it's
between the time you introduce it and when you sign
it into law, and it's afterwards.

Speaker 6 (03:56):
Well, they said that before.

Speaker 5 (03:59):
The governor signed it was not the right time. So
yesterday we filed another lawsuit and we raised the point
again basically asking Okay, now is this the right time?
So we've put that question back before them in a
second lawsuit that we filed yesterday, along with about three
other significant constitutional violations.

Speaker 3 (04:21):
Does any of this I mean, is this going to
be on the ballot or not? I mean we're trying
to what's the timeframe? When does the ballots have to
be printed? Like how much time do we have to
get this at least halted?

Speaker 5 (04:35):
Yeah, So in the lawsuit that we filed yesterday, we
raised four arguments for why the court should yank this
off the ballot, four ways that we think that it
violates the constitution. We alerted the court that we need
an answer in two weeks. It's it's, you know, our
estimation that if you go much beyond two weeks, you

(04:56):
know they're already going to have to start printing and
mailing ballots. Shortly after that, and you know that's it's.

Speaker 6 (05:02):
Part of our argument.

Speaker 5 (05:03):
Redistricting is a massive under I mean, an election is
a massive undertaking. Redistricting is a massive undertaking. In addition
to ramming through the redistricting process, which you know happened
in secret, you're now also putting California's counties right between
a rock and a hard place. They are going to

(05:24):
be scrambling to get this thing ready on the ballots
and ready for a special election that they weren't planning for.
So that's why we've said, you know, we need an
answer in two weeks to these questions.

Speaker 1 (05:35):
That's a great point. I mean there is.

Speaker 3 (05:37):
I mean there's certainly an impact democratically, there's an impact ethically.

Speaker 1 (05:44):
With respect to if this is even appropriate.

Speaker 3 (05:47):
There's a financial impact of counties because because of this
completely partisan idea, partisan effort and partisan thrust, it's having
an economic impact on counties that otherwise we're not planning
on budgeting for this.

Speaker 6 (06:01):
Oh it's horrible.

Speaker 5 (06:03):
We're talking about hundreds of millions of dollars right in
a state that is in an embarrassingly bad budget deficit,
a state facing homelessness and in other issues that is
screaming for money and attention.

Speaker 6 (06:23):
We are being distracted by.

Speaker 5 (06:25):
This, and it is siphoning off money that you could
be used, both private and public money. I'm talking about
hundreds of millions of dollars of private money as well
as public money that could have been put to better use.
It's a disgrace and it's a shame.

Speaker 3 (06:40):
What do you expect out of the Justice Department from
the White from the Trump administration? He said yesterday that
he's looking at it. What can they do from a
federal level?

Speaker 5 (06:50):
Well, you know, unfortunately I don't know's I learned about
it when everybody else did. I'm not involved in their
thought process. There are limited tools that the government has
at its disposal, you know, the the Federal Constitution and

(07:12):
federal statutes that they enforce. You know, they are potentially
strong tools, but we're also limited at the same time.
You know, they they they could try to put together
a few different arguments. I'm not really sure what ones
they're looking at and whether those are arguments that they

(07:32):
would bring now or they would be held in reserve
until after the election. So I think we're all probably
gonna learn more about that shortly. But it's not something
that I'm actually in the loop on.

Speaker 3 (07:45):
Michael lumba partner with the Dylan Law Group, in on
this from the get go. Thanks for spending some time
with us, keep up the fight, keep us posted.

Speaker 1 (07:51):
We'll be in touch with you.

Speaker 6 (07:54):
My pleasure. LUs.

Speaker 5 (07:54):
Thank you so much for having me on the show,
and have.

Speaker 6 (07:56):
A great day.

Speaker 1 (07:57):
All right. When we come back, we'll get into this.

Speaker 3 (08:00):
It's a real petulant nature on the part of Governor
Gavin Newsom to just drive through this jerry mandard idea
and is it beginning to have a little bit of
political blowback.

Speaker 1 (08:10):
We'll talk about it next.

Speaker 3 (08:11):
Lou Penrose infa John Cobelt on KFI AM six forty
live everywhere on the iHeartRadio at.

Speaker 7 (08:18):
You're listening to John Cobelt on demand from KFI AM
six forty.

Speaker 3 (08:24):
Lou Penrose, if John Cobelt on the John coblt Show,
the kitchen sink is being thrown at the California Legislature
and the governor in.

Speaker 1 (08:33):
Court to try and stop this on a number of
different points. The thirty day point was the strongest one
for me.

Speaker 3 (08:42):
So the way this works, and it's interesting it was
Democrats originally that were really into the hole, slow everything
down game. You weren't supposed to ram things through, And
so they had this idea that everything had to be
reviewed for thirty days so that the people had a

(09:03):
chance to look at legislation before their representatives voted on
it and the governors signed it. Now that's a bit specious.
Nobody actually reads legislation. Lobbyists read legislation. Now, nothing wrong
with that. You know, lobbyist is.

Speaker 1 (09:18):
A dirty word, except when he's your lobbyist.

Speaker 3 (09:23):
Right, So, if you're a doctor and there is legislation
that affects your practice and the California Medical Association is
in their lobbying, in other words, looking at the law
to make sure it doesn't hurt your practice, then that's
good for you.

Speaker 1 (09:38):
So then you're happy to have a lobbyist.

Speaker 5 (09:41):
Right.

Speaker 1 (09:41):
If you're a nurse and the Californian.

Speaker 3 (09:42):
Nursing Association is in there making sure that they're not
changing your situation such that you have to work more
for less, then that's a good lobbyist. So it's okay
that people who are experts at reading legislative plans are
looking at this stuff, and also advocacy groups will be

(10:05):
looking at it. My friend Carl Demayo Reform California. They
look at every piece of legislation and.

Speaker 1 (10:10):
Then they go on places like hey, if I to
tell you all about it, what's really in the details.

Speaker 3 (10:16):
So I don't have a problem with lobbyists getting involved
so that they can report back to their constituency, which
is usually some kind of business interest or parent interest
or whatever, to say, hey, they're about to change this law.
You need to stop them. So we do need a
little bit of time. There should be no rush. Now,
keep in mind, the governor has been very clear that

(10:40):
he believes we are in a state of emergency, that
democracy is in peril, that this is it. It's the
same old nonsense that we heard during the campaign that
if Trump becomes president, he'll be a dictator on day one.

Speaker 1 (10:55):
If Trump wins this election, there'll be no more elections.
If Trump beats Kama Harris, then we won't have a
United States anymore.

Speaker 3 (11:03):
Remember all that stuff, and then Trump went on to
win the election, all seven swing states and the popular vote.
The story on Wednesday morning after the Tuesday that election
wasn't that Trump won, it was that it wasn't even close.

(11:27):
So now fast forward, how are we doing here? Trump
has been president for two hundred and eighteen days. We're
only two hundred and eighteen days into this Trump presidency,
and they've run out.

Speaker 1 (11:37):
Of new things to throw at him. So now they've
gone full circle.

Speaker 3 (11:41):
Now they're back to he's a danger to democracy, and
the National Guard just proves it. Even though the National
Guard has made Washington d C the safest Washington d
C has been in forty years.

Speaker 1 (11:55):
They haven't had a homicide.

Speaker 3 (11:57):
In seven days and they used to have multiple homicides
a night.

Speaker 1 (12:04):
Carjacking down eighty three percent.

Speaker 3 (12:07):
I don't know what the carjacking number was, but if
it's down eighty three percent, that had to be at
least eighty three carjackings or one hundred to count.

Speaker 1 (12:21):
So whatever the numbers are, they are.

Speaker 3 (12:25):
Way better than they were before he took control of
the police department there in Washington, DC. So like nothing
bad is happening, and everything that is happening is to
the betterment of whatever the model is, whether it's the
people that live in DC, whether it is the people
negotiating trade agreements with India or Germany or South Korea,

(12:48):
whatever the conditions are. If you have a retirement fund.
He got a four oh one K five twenty nine.
Whatever's going on. Things are better. So now Democrats to
maintain the Trump Derangement syndrome level of hysteria to the
Democrat base. Keep in mind Democrats are only talking to
their base right now in California. They have to go

(13:09):
back to Trump is a dictator and just look at
the way he's federalized DC.

Speaker 1 (13:16):
That's gonna happen to you.

Speaker 3 (13:17):
Next, he's gonna have a Trump National Guardsman in your driveway.

Speaker 1 (13:23):
It's gonna be in every city.

Speaker 3 (13:24):
He's going to take control of Democrat run cities, just
like it did Washington, DC.

Speaker 1 (13:29):
Like all of this ridiculous hysteria to.

Speaker 3 (13:32):
Get every Democrat member of the State Assembly and every
Democrat State Senator all riled up, because they tend to
be pretty hysterical people.

Speaker 1 (13:41):
If you talk to any of them.

Speaker 3 (13:44):
To think that if I don't take an extreme action
here and eliminate the thirty day period and work around
the rules to get this legislation through to Jerrymander California,
then Trump is just going to to take over Los Angeles,
San Francisco, San Diego, Sacramento, and the Democrats really believe this.

Speaker 1 (14:07):
I mean, they are really that deranged.

Speaker 3 (14:12):
Now, I still maintain my original position, and that is
this is too inside baseball for people to understand. Redistricting apportionment,
congressional district, district lines, independent citizen commissions. That is deep

(14:35):
inside baseball. And I don't think the average Republican Democrat
are independent in California know or care to know. And
when people don't know or care to know, they vote no.
So there is a couple of tools in the toolbox
at Shirley Weber's office, the Secretary of State. They can

(14:57):
mislead and miss word the ballot proposition so that a
no vote means yes. They have done that in the past,
and they might have to hear. We'll see, but it's
I still think it's a hard sell. I think that

(15:17):
most people are just.

Speaker 6 (15:20):
Like it.

Speaker 3 (15:21):
Just it's it's so hard to understand, even for people
that enjoy politics and political science and public policy. It's
just it's one of the boringest things out there. District lines.
It has no sex appeal to it. There's no music
in the narrative. It's just beat. It's just really beat stuff.

(15:41):
So I do think the governor is gonna have a
hard time. But the Trump administration said that they are
interested in filing a suit against California.

Speaker 4 (15:48):
I think I'm going to be filing a lawsuit pretty soon,
and I think we're going to be very successful in it.
We're going to be filing it through the Department of Justice.
That's going to happen.

Speaker 1 (15:58):
So we'll see what comes next.

Speaker 8 (16:00):
Just maybe the judge said that that was okay to
do that in the regis drinking effort by not doing
the thirty days because the public is gonna have to
vote on it to begin with in November, so they
will have plenty of times and they want to vote
it down and then they hand then thirty day thing
here is just freaking stupid.

Speaker 1 (16:19):
Well, why why what's the rush? Why the rush?

Speaker 3 (16:22):
Why it's the twenty six so thirty days would be
the twenty fifth of September. Like, if we're going to
have an emergency action, then why do we have to
obey of the forty five day rule before the election? Like,
let's if everything's an emergency, I mean, if this is
all just so important, then you would argue that you

(16:43):
need more time to bring everybody up to speed, not
less time. Anytime something is rushed in politics, it's bad.
I used to work for Congresswoman Mary Bono, and she
had a rule because in Congress, they're constantly rushing you.
They constantly want you to make a decision quickly. They
are constantly pushing you in a meeting and out of

(17:05):
a meeting. They're constantly rushing everything. Get everything in, Come on.
That's Harry, Harry, Harry, Hair Harry. And my boss, congress
Woman Mary Bono, always told me, lou tell them the
answer is no, whatever the question is. If they have
to know right now, the answer is no, whatever the
question is. And that was a damn good rule, and

(17:25):
as voters, we should have the exact same attitude. Louke
Penrose in for John Cobelt on KFI AM six forty.

Speaker 7 (17:33):
You're listening to John Cobelt on demand from KFI AM
six forty.

Speaker 3 (17:38):
Louke Penrose in for John Cobelt on The John coblt
Show this week. Less than five hours after President Trump
signed an executive order yesterday protecting the US flag from
burning and desecration, somebody lit the American flag on fire
right in front of the White House.

Speaker 9 (17:59):
Yeah, while being because I expressed my first Amendment right
to burn the United States flag in public, not causing
harm or causing any danger to any citizens their personnel.

Speaker 2 (18:10):
In the area.

Speaker 3 (18:10):
Oh guy, So he is Jay Carrey. He's a twenty
year combat veteran, disabled American veteran. He wanted to defy
President Trump's executive order, saying it's a violation of the
First Amendment rights.

Speaker 1 (18:24):
Here he is live doing it.

Speaker 4 (18:26):
Now.

Speaker 1 (18:27):
He's one of these guys. You know, these protesters.

Speaker 3 (18:30):
They have the megaphone, but then they also have like
the police walkie talkie strapped to like their suspender or
right by their collar. And it looks like the old
ADAM twelve squad car handset. It's like square with a
button on its side with the lines for the microphone.

Speaker 1 (18:49):
So yeah, so he's one of you know exactly what
I'm talking about.

Speaker 3 (18:52):
These are like very deranged people with the microphone and
the handset.

Speaker 1 (18:58):
And here he is right in front of the White
House lighting the flag for.

Speaker 10 (19:04):
Every single one of you American citizens. We burned the
flag in protests. You got President feel that it is
right to do whatever he wants, think.

Speaker 1 (19:16):
Whatever he wants he wants, regardless of the warriors. That's right.

Speaker 3 (19:20):
The Secret Service came right up to him and pulled
out the fire extinguisher being detained, and then he was detained. Okay,
So for all of your First Amendment advocates out there, uh,
you cannot light a fire in front of the White House.

Speaker 1 (19:38):
You can't just burn trash.

Speaker 3 (19:41):
You can't burn your clothing, you can't burn the American flag,
you can't burn anything like, regardless of what you are burning.
You cannot violate the local fire code that prohibits fires.

Speaker 1 (19:54):
In federal parks like you can.

Speaker 3 (19:56):
Only if he had burned the American flag in.

Speaker 1 (20:01):
The little habachi grill, it would have been okay. They
didn't do that. And also you're not allowed to spray
lighter fluid on the ground in front of the White House.

Speaker 3 (20:10):
According to the Secret Service, Secret Service whose fire distinguisher
to put out the flag. The arrest was made under
existing park regulations and not the new executive order, so
he couldn't do it yesterday or the day before.

Speaker 1 (20:24):
Everybody screams about the First Amendment.

Speaker 3 (20:27):
The founding fathers did not intend for maniacs with megaphones
to pour lighter fluid on the ground in front of
the White House. Which is there's a park right there,
and there's children there and things could catch fire.

Speaker 1 (20:43):
So that's not what you're supposed to do.

Speaker 3 (20:48):
And what kills me is all these learned scholars go
on CNN and talk about the First Amendment and the
Supreme Court and pass court decisions and beat babap baboo
about how.

Speaker 1 (21:00):
Oh, this is so silly.

Speaker 3 (21:01):
The president is just show voting, because this is so clear,
it's unequivocal First Amendment right right to expression. And then
they celebrate somebody who is clearly mentally ill or certainly
mentally unstable, or at the very least doesn't know how
to behave in a park, and they hitched their.

Speaker 1 (21:23):
Caboos onto these crazy trains. And that, I mean, let's
make the mistake.

Speaker 3 (21:31):
I recognize his service, and I appreciate that he's a
combat veteran, and he has every right to dislike the
president or the direction the president's taking this country. You
just can't light things on fire and think that you're
celebrating your First Amendment right. And the Secret Service did
not detain him. The Parks Department detained him. The Secret

(21:52):
Service protected the White House and the people that had
children there that were you.

Speaker 1 (21:58):
Know, touring the White House and the White House grounds.

Speaker 3 (22:02):
So enough with this whole First Amendment thing. I believe
in the First Amendment. I believe in it's in the
rights that it protects. Because I make a living exercising
the First Amendment. I can't just do whatever I want.
You can't just do whatever you want. And the Trump
arrangement syndrome is off the charts. And they literally spent

(22:24):
most of TV last night celebrating this guy and saying, see, look,
this is what you get. This is authoritarian. Is him
on display? This is what Trump wants. He wants to
stop people from having First Amendment rights.

Speaker 1 (22:36):
And there you have it. There's a twenty year veteran.

Speaker 3 (22:39):
My goodness, look at this guy being detained for exercising
his right of protest. Nothing more American and protesting American
elected leadership and the direction it's taking the country.

Speaker 1 (22:53):
And it's like, okay, hold on, relax, take a chill pill.

Speaker 3 (22:58):
As it turns out, what he did was illegal, way
before the executive order.

Speaker 1 (23:03):
What he did was dangerous. What he did was a
violation of the local ordinance.

Speaker 3 (23:10):
Not to mention, the Secret Service was not that happy
with him, but they, like they never tell you that
All they want to do is show voted.

Speaker 1 (23:18):
Him to try and make the president look bad.

Speaker 9 (23:21):
Yeah, I'm being detained because I expressed my First Amendment
right to burn the United States flag in public, not
causing harm or causing any danger to any citizen the
personnel in the area.

Speaker 1 (23:32):
You are incorrect.

Speaker 3 (23:34):
You burn the American flag, you do thirty days for
every star on that flag.

Speaker 1 (23:39):
That's a lot of math.

Speaker 11 (23:40):
Hey, lou Trump is the master at getting the Democrats
to defend the indefensible. Most people in the country don't
want people burn in our flag. Thanks for your show man,
it's great.

Speaker 1 (23:51):
Yeah, I appreciate that.

Speaker 3 (23:52):
I agree with you that he is a master at
getting Democrats to defend the defensible. Yesterday they were defending
Kilmar that kill Maar should stay, and Democrats were like, yeah,
I mean kill Maar should stay. Well, what about his
MS thirteen gang affiliations? What about him striking his spouse

(24:13):
and then violating the temporary restraining order, both of which
would make you instantly deportable.

Speaker 1 (24:18):
If you were here on a valid visa, which kill
Mar was not.

Speaker 3 (24:24):
Right, they he is great at causing Democrats to find
themselves in a position of defending illegals all day, every day,
and now they are defending Mayhem at a park in
front of the White House.

Speaker 1 (24:42):
Burning the American flags should not be allowed. You burned
the American flag, we burn you.

Speaker 5 (24:47):
Oh don't make sense to me?

Speaker 1 (24:48):
Aye?

Speaker 4 (24:48):
Right?

Speaker 1 (24:49):
All right, well, hot water burn baby. I appreciate the call.

Speaker 3 (24:51):
All right, when we come back, look remember where you
were on this day, the twenty sixth of August, because
it is a day that will live in infamy with
res back to pop culture. Everybody got excited to hear
of the nuptials over Taylor Swift and Travis Kelcey, and
I would be remiss if we didn't at least bring
it up and celebrate it a little bit.

Speaker 1 (25:13):
As a lot of hater a lot of haters out there.
I'm not really sure why.

Speaker 3 (25:18):
It was kind of a thing during the campaign because
we were not sure where those two were politically. But
there was some suspicion and then it's like, well, what
about Patrick Mahomes' wife, Brittany Mahomes, she's on the Trump train?

Speaker 1 (25:32):
Well? Is she she just liked somebody else being on
the Trump train?

Speaker 3 (25:36):
Is that why they're not in the booth together? So
that was always kind of fun to see if we
could figure it all out.

Speaker 1 (25:43):
But those days are over.

Speaker 3 (25:45):
Trump won and those two are still in love and
now they're married or they're getting married, now they're engaged.
That's wonderful. We should all be excited. The question is
she's thirty five years old. New reports came out earlier
today that at where's it here by twenty thirty, So
five years from now, nearly half of US women between

(26:07):
the ages of twenty five and forty four will be single,
half of all women between twenty five and forty four
will be single, and Swift is thirty five, So she's
depending on when they.

Speaker 1 (26:23):
Actually have that ceremony and say I do should be
very close to the.

Speaker 3 (26:31):
North end of that bracket because she's so popular, and
because swifties tend to be around that age well, probably
younger than twenty five, but women twenty five forty four single.

Speaker 1 (26:43):
That's the swiftye right there.

Speaker 3 (26:45):
Is she single handedly reversing course and making marriage cool again.

Speaker 1 (26:51):
We'll talk about it all coming up next. Louke Penrose
for John Cobelt on KFI AM six forty.

Speaker 7 (26:58):
You're listening to John Cope else on demand from KFI
AM sixty.

Speaker 3 (27:04):
Lou Penrose in for John Cobelt on the John coblt
Show this week coming up following the news at two
new numbers about this high speed rail now ninety billion dollars,
ninety billion dollars, and it's not going to be ready
until let's see here, it'll be done forever, like, not

(27:27):
until forever. We're yeah, thirty nine, twenty thirty nine, forget it,
it's over. By the year twenty thirty nine, there will
be no uber drivers, all the cars will be self driving,
all the trucks will be self driving. By twenty thirty nine,

(27:51):
you probably won't even be allowed to drive a car
on the regular roads because it'll mess up with the
algorithms of the Uber. There's like, there's a lot of
thought out there that we were on horses for thousands
of years and within ten years there wasn't a horse

(28:15):
allowed on the road and everybody had a car and
people had horses.

Speaker 1 (28:19):
They're like, well, wait a minute, what about the horse.

Speaker 3 (28:21):
So people that want to ride their horse go to
a stable, and that will be the future of your car.
Like the self driving cars will take you everywhere you
want to go, and it'll be very fast. Because why
would I mean, a processor is a far better driver

(28:42):
than the human brain, So it will be unsafe to
have humans on the road while computer processing is going
on getting you back and forth to lax. So the
only place for you to enjoy your new BMW will
be like some somewhere, and that's what we'll have. Like

(29:02):
how we have horse stables now where people that own
horses go and spend the Saturday afternoon with their horse,
and they go ride the horse around for fun and recreation.

Speaker 1 (29:14):
That's what you'll do with your car.

Speaker 3 (29:17):
There'll be a lot more of these little racetracks around
where you can go and drive in a circle and
turn left and like that will be the future. And
if that's true, certainly by twenty thirty nine that'll be
the case.

Speaker 1 (29:31):
That's how quickly things are moving.

Speaker 3 (29:33):
Somebody explained to me that science and technology in the
next twenty years will it'll speed up by a factor
of at least four, but perhaps by a factor of seven.
So science and technology will be in the next twenty

(29:54):
years at least four times more advanced than it is today,
but maybe seven times more advanced, which means arithmetically, twenty
forty five is as far ahead of us signs and
technology wise as eighteen ninety was backward. So think about

(30:19):
what the average person did in eighteen ninety and try
to explain to the person in eighteen ninety what you
did this morning, Like you woke up to an alarm
clock that wasn't invented yet, and check your iPhone that
wasn't invented.

Speaker 1 (30:34):
Yet, to take a shower with hot water that.

Speaker 3 (30:38):
Wasn't invented yet, to get in a car that wasn't invented,
to drive to an airport that wasn't invented, to take
a plane that wasn't invented to another city to watch
a movie that wasn't invented, or watching a movie on
the plane, or now watching a movie on your phone.
Like the person in eighteen ninety could not possibly comprehend

(31:00):
your day today from a science and technological standpoint.

Speaker 1 (31:04):
Now eighteen ninety nine. I mean they were not.

Speaker 3 (31:06):
So and sophisticated, but the science and technology component of their.

Speaker 1 (31:13):
Lives you could never explain, you could.

Speaker 3 (31:16):
I remember me once trying to explain to my dad
what an iTunes gift card was. My dad was a
seventy five year old Italian immigrant who barely spoke English,
and I was trying to explain to what an iTunes
gift card was like. That is three factors of technological
fantasy to an Italian old man, right, So you couldn't

(31:39):
possibly explain to somebody in eighteen ninety what you did today.
How it's how could you possibly get the point across?
They could even conceive of such things as phones, let
alone iPhones, let alone airplanes. So for us to even
consider what twenty forty five is going to be like

(31:59):
is impossible. It's just it's it's it's my numbing and
it's impossibility.

Speaker 1 (32:07):
So I do believe that the.

Speaker 3 (32:10):
High speed rail is just gonna fade away because they're
gonna like people, no one's gonna take it anywhere.

Speaker 1 (32:15):
No one's gonna take city buses anywhere anymore.

Speaker 3 (32:20):
And you could probably get the San Francisco or Vegas
in a much shorter period of time because all the
self driving cars will all be moving so much faster.
Read where's my jetpack? And you'll see. But I appreciate it.

Speaker 1 (32:41):
This is a grown man burning this flag in the park.

Speaker 5 (32:45):
He's like, what fifty five years old, almost sixty?

Speaker 1 (32:49):
I mean, grow up, dude. I think he's a grown man.

Speaker 9 (32:51):
Yeh, being detained because I expressed my First Amendment right
to burn the United States flag in public, not causing harm.
We're causing any danger to any fitted into personnel in
the area.

Speaker 8 (33:03):
I hate Donald Trump and Gavin Newsome, but you shouldn't
be able to burn an American flag. I do stand
behind that.

Speaker 1 (33:12):
I appreciate the call.

Speaker 3 (33:13):
I always think about that when these individuals are aged right,
and I mean when it comes to facing a year's
sentence for a federal crime and you're like, you know,
thirty five, forty five, fifty five years old, what that
conversation is going to be like with your cellmate.

Speaker 1 (33:34):
I talked about this yesterday.

Speaker 3 (33:37):
Some of the people that are facing prison time for
throwing rocks at ice vehicles a couple of weeks ago.
Those guys that were in downtown LA throwing rocks at
ice vehicles. That one guy that was throwing rocks at
the ice vehicle outside the marijuana farm, they were like
in their late thirties. It's bizarre to me that people.

Speaker 1 (34:01):
The one guy that.

Speaker 3 (34:02):
Was in Monrovia, he was in trouble for nailing nails
into the tires of the ice units. At the Rancho
Cucamonga hotel where the ICE agents were spending the night,
and they had all the ICE agents parked in the
parking lot, and all the protesters were out there and
one guy and I don't know how he thought he
wasn't on camera, but since the security camera in the
parking lot. But these people are idiots, and they got

(34:26):
him for defacing ICE vehicles, flattening the tires.

Speaker 1 (34:31):
And he was fifty four years old. Goodness gracious, so
time to grow up, all right.

Speaker 3 (34:39):
So when we come back state Senator to Tony Stricklum
will join us. He says, Hey, this whole high speed
reil thing is for the birds, always has been, and
really what we need to do is send it back
to the voters. Really, the voters need to revisit this
because we're just spending money like crazy. You do get
to a point where at the point and overturn right rubicon,

(35:00):
At what point do you just.

Speaker 1 (35:02):
Build and make the little bit work?

Speaker 3 (35:07):
But just I don't know to get from point A
to point B, and I don't know what you do
around it. Maybe turn it into some kind of an
amusement park ride or something you've already spent so much money,
do you continue throwing good money after bad And who
is going to take the high speed rail in twenty

(35:28):
thirty nine.

Speaker 1 (35:34):
It really is a question that we have to answer.

Speaker 3 (35:36):
And when you consider the amount of federal dollars that
are going into it and the fact that the federal
government is holding back on those dollars, this could free
up an awful lot of money in California to do
so many of the things that.

Speaker 1 (35:47):
We need to do.

Speaker 3 (35:48):
But we always seem to be fighting problems that are
behind us instead of saving money preparing for in this case,
transportation challenges that are ahead of us. It would have
been nice to be able to take a high speed
rail from Los Angeles to San Francisco like twenty years ago.
But I don't know that anybody wants to take a

(36:11):
high speed rail to San Francisco now. And you could
take an airplane to San Francisco now, you could also drive.

Speaker 1 (36:19):
Eventually you'll be able to take you.

Speaker 3 (36:20):
Know, you can take an uber now, but eventually to
be affordable to take an uber.

Speaker 1 (36:24):
So this all becomes like for not, especially.

Speaker 3 (36:26):
When you're looking at fifteen years from now. So we'll
talk with sat Senator Tony Strickland, who's been working on
this and I think leads the fight to get this
back to the voters. Also now a seven year car loan,
that's what more and more drivers are looking at with
respect to their car payments. We'll talk about it coming

(36:47):
up next following the news at two. Loup Penrose in
for John Coblt on The John Cobalt Show on KFI
AM six.

Speaker 1 (36:54):
Forty, live everywhere on the iHeartRadio app.

Speaker 2 (36:56):
Hey, you've been listening to the John Cobalt Show podcast.
You can always hear the show live on KFI AM
six forty from one to four pm every Monday through Friday,
and of course anytime on demand on the iHeartRadio app

The John Kobylt Show News

Advertise With Us

Host

John Kobylt

John Kobylt

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

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.

Law & Order: Criminal Justice System - Season 1 & Season 2

Law & Order: Criminal Justice System - Season 1 & Season 2

Season Two Out Now! Law & Order: Criminal Justice System tells the real stories behind the landmark cases that have shaped how the most dangerous and influential criminals in America are prosecuted. In its second season, the series tackles the threat of terrorism in the United States. From the rise of extremist political groups in the 60s to domestic lone wolves in the modern day, we explore how organizations like the FBI and Joint Terrorism Take Force have evolved to fight back against a multitude of terrorist threats.

Music, radio and podcasts, all free. Listen online or download the iHeart App.

Connect

© 2025 iHeartMedia, Inc.