KXEL Presents: The Jacobsen Group Podcast – April 12, 2025

Who used all the Wi-Fi?

Ah, apartment life.

Bad Wi-Fi, mystery laundry piles, and a roommate who says, I'll Venmo you.

Maybe 2027 deserves an upgrade.

Coming August 2027, Four Lakes Properties introduces the brand new Union Station Apartments, furnished in-unit washer and dryer.

Internet included a great central downtown location, one to five bedroom apartments, and no double occupancy fees.

That's less adulting and more actually enjoying where you live.

Union Station Apartments, now leasing from Four Lakes Properties.

Wait, we have a washer and dryer in the apartment?

If you're enjoying this KXEL podcast, then we invite you to listen to KXEL's great programming in real time too.

You can hear us on the radio, statewide at AM 1540 and in the Cedar Valley at FM 100.5.

We stream live on the web, not only through KXEL.com, but also through our free KXEL mobile app.

And Alexa knows how to find us too.

It's where Iowa comes to talk.

News Talk 1540 KXEL.

A great beautiful morning here on Saturday.

It is Passion Tide, Palm Sunday, tomorrow, the Masters is underway.

You're listening to the Jacobson Group on KXEL, America's original 15,000 watt blowtorch, 1540 AM, caroming to 14 states and two Canadian promises, mostly from our Big Ten Nexus, along with our Cedar Rapids signal of 100.5 FM.

You can also listen live to us and...

Mike Shane will have this podcast up by Monday on KXEL.com slash Jacobson, our first half hour today, the Gordney Institute, the Teach and Think Tank from Angels Nighter College of Business at Ottawa University, free market enterprise being taught there.

What a wonderful group at the Gordney Institute.

Also, after that, we do want to give kudos to Midwestern Google Energy LLC, LifeRunners.org.

and Haynes Holmes as we are going to bring you a great McLaughlin group, round table, cutting edge discussion.

The earthquake of Iowa, the news of criminals will not be running for reelection.

A new governor after 10 years, the great Craig Birdman.

Curtis Bauer, Sam Jones, and Joel Kurtinitis join yours truly for a McLaughlin-style debate with prognostications and punty-tree on the state of Iowa politics vis-a-vis the governor's race as well as legislative races and other fallout.

Stay with us for the full hour, glorting now the great Iowa governor debate of who's gonna take over Terrace Hill at eight o'clock high.

Economics is the study of human choice in the world we live.

Faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.

By investigating faith in economics, we can learn how they lead to human flourishing.

This is the Faith in Economics podcast, a presentation of the Gortney Institute at Ottawa University.

Welcome to our show today.

I'm Cole McCrae, producer and undergraduate scholar for the Gortney Institute.

With us we have Dr. Russ McCullough, founder of the Gordney Institute and Wayne Angel Chair of Economics, Dr. Justin Clark, the Menard Family Professor of Philosophy and Ethics, and Dr. Peter Jacobsen, the Gordney Professor of Economic Education and Research.

All right, so we thought today would be a good time to talk about expansion of the United States.

There's been talk in a number of different directions and

Something that's bothered me is a little bit of the rhetoric, maybe, and the way it's handled, which isn't a big surprise with President Trump there, handling things differently than maybe how I would handle it.

But we'll get into that more, too.

Justin, what do you want to start us off with here, thinking about expansion?

That's what I wanted to start out with well, you know, we're We seem to

be moral philosophy.

We shouldn't be taking over imperialism.

Okay, does that sound like something I'd say?

Yeah, so it seems like expansion of the like literal boundaries of America seems to be at least on the table or being used as a negotiating point a negotiating tactic

And I'm curious what you guys think about it, because the two areas that have been talked about are Canada and Greenland, right?

And then, I mean, a little bit of Panama-ish, and that seems to be more saber-rattling, but I can't really tell.

So, I have a bunch of opinions on all, at least, especially the Canada one, because I think that one's really interesting.

I don't know what you guys thought.

Well, I

guess I'll just lead off of, ever since I was young even, I'm like, why didn't we just make them states when I learned about territories and like, you know, why didn't we just do that?

And I guess maybe over time I became more sensitive to imperialism and let, you know, the world doesn't work that way anymore, you know, or whatever.

But I mean, we did have a big history of doing that with what we did with the United States and otherwise.

So to me, a lot of it comes down to what the

maybe the people of the country are feeling.

But yeah, even since I was little, and I guess I still kind of hold those feelings a little bit, that when Trump first mentioned that stuff, I'm like, well, why shouldn't it be on the table?

Obviously not to take them over violently, but through negotiations, if there's a win-win situation, I mean, I think it's kind of cool.

Yeah, I'll be curious about your impression, Justin.

My general thinking on that is this.

Think that most of it is a waste of time in terms of the discussion, not like our podcast here, but just like on a high level, I think it's mostly a waste of time.

And it's a little bit, I think, in attempts to bring about some strategic uncertainty.

So I think there's a, to some extent, Trump tries to shake things up for the sake of shaking things up because it's easier to accomplish things when everything's kind of influx.

So I think a little bit of that's going on.

I do think that if the US, you know, incorporated Alberta, Canada into the United States, that I think that would be a really big boon for the people of Alberta.

I think their lives would improve significantly.

I think the Canadian government is totally controlled by a few special interests, and I think you could argue that's true of us too, to some extent.

But I think the Canadian government is in more of a situation where because of how their country is set up institutionally, it's a bigger deal that they're controlled by a few interests.

So there's huge problems in Canada right now with respect to housing because a lot of like property owners have basically

prevented supply increases for housing while ensuring that immigration increases in these areas that are already very, you know, have a lot of people there.

And so that causes housing prices in Canada to just be ridiculous.

It's very hard for even a middle class person in Canada to imagine buying a home in 20 or 30 years.

And so I think a lot of people's lives would be improved by, again, not all of Canada, but maybe pieces of Canada's incorporation to the United States.

Now,

I don't know if that improvement is enough to justify us being like, yeah, well, Canada, Alberta is kind of ours now.

You know, I don't think that is the logical next step here.

But I do think if people didn't have a sort of derangement about Donald Trump himself, that this conversation would actually be seriously entertained by a lot of different parties.

Now, I'll also say at the same time, I'm not certain that Alberta coming into the United States would be a benefit for the United States or any of Canada at all for that matter.

I definitely do not want five new Canadian states.

What that would do to us electorally would be just nightmarish.

And so I have no interest in that aspect.

Now, maybe they could be states, but maybe only Alberta could be a state, right?

Because Alberta actually tends to be a little more reasonable in terms of people's political beliefs and things like that.

So that's my, I'll have to think on Greenland a little bit while we're talking the podcast.

I want to, I could talk on this for 10 minutes straight.

So I want to send over to Justin on his thoughts, but that's kind of my initial impressions.

Yeah, I agree with you.

The last point is the big one for me.

It's that, you know, people talk about, oh, let's make Canada the 51st state.

You can have some giant single state above the rest of the United States.

That's one territory.

Probably not.

I mean, you're going to break it up into maybe the similar way that it's broken up right now, in which case, good luck to anybody on the right winning a national election anytime in the near future.

Canadians are to the left of Americans for the most part.

I'd

say one of the biggest, one of the farthest left countries in the world, really, in

the

developed world.

But it was framed as one state.

Each time I heard it, like let's make Canada, like you said, like

would that have a way to swing them in the electoral college?

If it's one, then it's still a huge, like this is a big problem.

Secondly, I don't think it would be one.

I mean, is your bet, like if we did this, then it would be one state.

They would try to do things like probably try to incorporate the current lines that they have right

now.

I think

this, I think it would be an electoral disaster.

Secondly, Canadians do not want to be part of the United States for the most

part.

And

I know like the big talk, there's big talk about like, oh, well, there's so much like mineral wealth and things like that.

And that's an argument that also gets brought up for Greenland.

But there is a bunch of mineral wealth in Canada.

There's also a bunch of mineral wealth in the United States that we're not allowed to access for reasons that the federal government has imposed these rules.

Canada's not accessing a lot of their own mineral wealth for these reasons.

So I don't see the US benefiting from it.

Even if the Canadians would benefit from it, I don't see them liking benefiting from it.

And it's a hard sell to tell people that they're going to benefit from something that they really don't want.

And it seems like the reaction to Trump's tariffs has been a movement left in Canada, like a big move towards like the Liberal Party, I think is doing better post Trump's tariff announcement than they were beforehand.

So if this is being used as some kind of bargaining chip, okay, but boy, I hope nobody calls our bluff and says, okay, well, we'll join because I think that would be like a real disaster.

It would be like,

you know, multiplying and giving us three, you know, one more New York and like three more Vermont's or

something.

Yeah, and I'm sure we could dream up some sort of political thing where, you know, one one electoral vote from all of Canada, but yet they remain in their territories.

But it's not even worth going there because they don't want to do it.

It's not going to be voluntary.

It's not even up in the air because I so I was at this conference in Mexico City and had a chance to

to speak with Fred McMahon who runs the Frasier Institute where the economic freedom index is made and I'm like, Fred, you're the first time of that chance to ask a Canadian, you know, how you feeling?

They're mad.

I mean, and rightfully so.

I mean, that's the, that was my impression that I really think of all the rhetoric and stuff of shaking things up and again, strategic motives and all that I get, but

Man, I have to side with them that they've been a good trading partner, good relationships, blah, blah, blah, and maybe some stiffening up of the border and some things needed to be done.

But overall, I think throwing out the Canada should be a state was not the best move to do.

I think we didn't need to head that direction.

Well, I think it could have been approached differently, too.

And this is often a critique of Trump is that his approach is too aggressive.

There might be something to that, but I actually find a lot of times when people have that criticism of Trump, he tends to come out on the right side.

So I'm very aware of that sort of comment.

Oh, this approach is too abrasive.

It's like people have been saying that about him for 12 years now.

And

it's

like he still keeps succeeding anyways.

So maybe there maybe everybody else is wrong, right?

In that case.

But

Yeah, I mean to speak to both of those points.

I actually think if you approach this properly there could be the the a more positive feeling both from

some Canadians and also maybe a positive benefit to the US.

It is true that there's a group of Canadians who feel completely unrepresented in their governments.

Anybody who's like would even be considered a conservative in the United States.

There's

not

even a party for those people.

They're they have a conservative party in Canada, but it's like two steps to the right of Justin Trudeau.

And so there is a big contingent of people who in Canada

feel that they've been bullied by their government they feel like they've had these moral values from the left and left imposed on them with no real consent of their own a lot of you know decisions made in terms of children's education that they disagree with in terms of what they're allowed to say from the pulpit that they disagree with.

And so I, and there's actually a lot of Canadians also concerned about the facts that, you know, there's spent so much immigration into Canada that like political disputes from the country of India are actually affecting Canadian politics now.

Like that's how intertwined the countries have become because of this massive wave of immigration.

If you want to test case of the country that

the political arguments against immigration seems to be correct.

It's Canada.

I mean, they've really developed some major, like, I think there was an assassination.

I think there was an assassination of a Canadian politician because of this.

I could have that wrong.

So, you know, take it with a grain of salt.

But my point is, I do think there's a contingent of Canadians that could stand to benefit from being Americans and who would appreciate that and who actually would add to what I would say would be sort of a liberty mindset.

The reason I said Alberta is my understanding is that's where a lot of those people live.

They sort of have the wild west mindset is my understanding and Alberta like the the terrain is a little more difficult and so that rugged individualism

that

kind of characterizes the US Maybe operates a little more there, but I do agree that even geographically carved up I don't think there's any piece of Canada right now that you could do this with like I actually think there would have to be a talk of like people

Getting to choose whether or not they like go to the US portion or not and like you know there'd have to be like compensation for people who feel like they have to move and is be a very complicated plant and probably too complicated,

you know, what's a better idea?

Free trade among the two nations basically gets us to where we are.

Free

trade doesn't fix the problem that I just mentioned, which is that a lot of Canadians have a government that will basically repress their deepest self-beliefs, right?

Trading with those people does not help.

They can't get out of... I mean, you can sort of leave Canada, but it costs a lot of money to immigrate out of Canada, and it's very...

From mobility to

US.

Yeah, so

if we opened up free mobility with those Canadians, then yeah, the problem would be fixed as well.

I see that as less feasible than acquiring Canada.

And

they are pretty free to move around.

A lot of Canadians spend extended winters down in Florida.

It depends on the month.

During COVID, if you weren't vaccinated,

you couldn't

leave the country and you couldn't

use the trains.

I can't bring one total COVID into the picture.

Let go out into the trucker protest in Canada.

The question is, do you want to live in a country that tomorrow could say to you you're not allowed to leave or use public transportation?

Right.

And like my answer to that question is obviously not.

And so that's why I think where those people say it would be valuable if they were part of the U.S.

Now, do I think the Canadian government has engaged in systematic human rights abuses such that warrants the U.S.

invading and stopping them from doing that?

No, because I generally think our ability to do that's very low.

I do think they've engaged in human rights abuses.

I think the trucker protests is a great example of that.

I think forcing people to stay in their homes as aggressively as was done in Canada, that is also a great example of that now.

Okay, that's not the only country that did that.

We can't save every country where that happened because that's everywhere.

But still, my ultimate point is, I think there is a win-win exchange here in theory.

in practice, I don't see it happening.

My only pushback to that would be Canada is in the top 10 of the most free countries in the world, according to the Economic Freedom Index.

So they're right up there in terms of freedom.

I mean, the United States is at 8.09 and Canada's 7.99.

Anyway, the United States is five, they're eight, Denmark, Luxembourg, Switzerland, you know, Hong Kong, blah, blah, blah.

They're right in there with the freedom.

So some of these little the trucker movement thing and I think these are We're not going from United States to India or other developing countries where they might be more oppressive I just I feel like these are littler things than What they really are and so freedom free to trade with other relatively free countries isn't a bad solution, but

So, just really, I mostly agree, but I will say countries do not have tyrannies or sovereign debt crises or major problems until they do, right?

So, our present measures are lagging indicators of what future it looks like for

the people.

Good point.

That's also kind of average over...

the U.S.

as a whole and there's some pretty big differences in terms of freedom among the states.

Oh yeah.

They published that too.

I think that Canada represents a

lot

of our really problematic states.

And if you think that the U.S.

ought to be this kind of beacon of freedom or whatever, then kind of titrating our freedom with somebody else's that is less free, I think that's just a bad idea.

This would be one thing if you were looking at the electoral map and it was like, dude, we have so many votes to lose or whatever.

But when things seem balanced on this knife's edge, and I...

I just don't think that these are elections that, like, you can afford to lose without.

Maybe we'll still keep our ranking among world governments and the most free, but, like, the objective freedom of everybody, I think, would go down.

All right, well, that looks like a good spot for a break.

And when we come back, I want to bring up stuff like Puerto Rico, too, which I got some information on.

Greenland.

And Greenland, of course.

Yeah, yeah, that's all on the agenda, so we'll be back here in just a bit.

Otto University has an exciting new major, PPE, which stands for philosophy, politics, and economics.

Each of these fields is interesting in their own right, but they intersect in ways that are important to understand both individually and for your community.

If you find philosophy fascinating but want to make sure that your study of the subject is practical, if you enjoy economic analysis but want to see how economic laws interact with more principles, if you are interested in politics but want to explore how economic and ethical realities constrain our political choices,

you should consider the PPE program at Ottawa University.

This spring, Ottawa University is organizing a PPE League competition or Politics, Philosophy and Economics.

Students in this competition will compete leveraging the ideas of philosophy, politics and economics in various events.

If you're a professor or an advisor of college students and you're interested in your school competing in PPE League this spring, contact Peter, Justin or Russ today.

By 2030, the Gortney Institute will be known for its alumni, supporters, and participants who incorporate economic understanding with their faith in their careers, vocations, communities, and personal lives.

We have some great programming going on for high school students.

We have an online microeconomics class.

Yes, you can earn college credit for $200 by taking an online class.

It's affordable, flexible, layered with support.

Our new online micro is optimized for you.

If you'd like to consider some events for your high school students or that class, please contact Justin, Peter, or Russ today.

All right, so we're back and considering all these potential moves and whether they become part of the United States in some way, shape, or form.

It's time to roll on to Greenland.

So Dr. Clark, why don't you start us off with Greenland?

I just think Greenland is an interesting case because

Unlike Canada, you know, it's much less people, but it has a similar kind of like geographical mineral like profile to what Canada does much fewer people and Greenland is currently much

much like isn't it 50,000 or something or 50 to 60?

I think it's it's it's a lot 56,000.

Yeah.

56,000, which is I mean, come on give me a break.

It's half a Lawrence.

Yeah, exactly.

You take any city in the United States and they

and one of the decent sized metropolitan areas over the population agreement.

And it's

currently like officially controlled by Denmark, right?

And although they do have kind of like a home rule situation, but it seems like that would be a much more achievable and doable acquisition in the sense that it's currently held by some other power.

It's kind of a leftover colonial situation.

has the same kinds of minerals that Canada has and a far fewer population and a population that I think, I mean, I don't want to talk bad about Canadians, but I think Canadians are always proud.

They're kind of proud to not be American, like, especially over the last 20 years, I think, since like the Bush administration.

Yes, Iraq War two.

It has been like a I'm Canadian, not American kind of thing.

Yeah.

Well, the Prime Minister the other day or somebody some Canadian group just declared themselves like, oh, we're the most European of the non European countries like that.

They love to not be associated with America.

Yeah, which, you know, I'm fine to let them have that.

Yeah.

Enjoy Europe.

Yeah.

So I mean, one of the things that I thought about

Trump's Canada and Greenland strategy was like the Canada thing was a kind of like Mott and Bailey like okay, we'll just do Greenland.

Because it seems like way more doable.

It doesn't have the problems of like a local population that really really hate like objects to it and is really sizable.

And then it doesn't come with the added baggage of like

this would have to be six states or the population's large enough to make a really huge dent in electoral politics.

It seems like at least a lot of the electoral stuff that I was bringing up that was like a huge red flag to me with Canada.

I don't see that with Greenland, although I'm sure that it would be like condemned by the international community if that happened.

So I don't know what you guys are saying if I'm trying to missing something.

I wondered if you guys have heard the same thing I did that

The media has done some different stories in that some of what was reported is that many Greenlanders support it because they see the benefits of becoming part of the United States.

I mean, if you think about 50 to 6,000 people in terms of purchasing and allocating money, we could probably make them all fairly rich for starters, just as part of some sort of acquisition.

I don't know what that would look like or not, but

I think a lot were generally supportive and that's where with Canada everybody, I mean they're just mad as hell that we even brought it up.

Whereas I think there's a decent support for it actually there.

I think there might be a few leaders that were against it and wanting to maintain their sovereignty but the actual people themselves, I think there was a more support anyway.

Yeah.

Some poll was taken saying that 85% don't want to be part of the US.

Is that

right?

Now, it's one poll and it's not like, I think it's by a news organization rather than like, yeah, CBS News.

I surveyed a thousand people near the Capitol.

That's

all the

people in Greenland.

And so, you know, part of the difficulty with the Greenland conversation is like,

Trump, because he... Trump always, and the media has sort of figured this out to maybe his detriment to some degree, Trump always wants to leave every option on the table for himself, and he refuses to ever close the door on any main means.

And so, sometimes people have brought up in conversation with Trump or Vance, or one of Trump's senior like Hexeth had this question in his, you know, confirmation hearings, like,

Would you support the United States invading Greenlands to capture it as part of our country?

And no one has ever said no to that question because, again, they refuse to take options off the table.

And so the response that's given when that question is asked is usually something like, well, there are situations where, for our national security, it could be necessary to take Greenlands.

Like, that's a very, like, Pentagon answer.

Well, maybe not.

Like, I guess, like, the Pentagon of old would have said, no, of course not ever, even though they have plans to do it the next day.

But that's sort of like a new Pentagon answer.

Like, yeah, everything's on the table.

We don't want to tell you that we're not going to do something if we have to have it.

But I don't think there's any real

scenario where trumpin fades greenlands at the same time and so and other people feel differently about this to be fair like there there are people out there who think like he's gonna make greenland he's gonna be panama and he's actually been more aggressive with this rhetoric towards panama even in greenlands because of the canal stuff.

Even though that settle

down china connection yeah

exactly so.

I mean, at the end of the day, no, we should not take over Greenland against the will of the people there.

I think that, like, I sort of like small countries.

I wish that every country was about the size of Greenland.

I think we'd live in a much better world if that were the case.

You know, it'd be, you know, it's an empirical question.

It's not actually theoretical.

But regardless, so I

If Greenland wants to take Greenland, I want Greenland to take Greenland at the end of the day.

And maybe that's not a majority question, but whatever that means is how I feel about it.

But I do think that, like Canada, there could be some advantages to joining the United States.

I think that the freedoms afforded by our Constitution, though imperfectly protected, are protected to some degree as evidenced by all the people who hate the Constitution, right?

So, I see it as a beneficial, you know, like Canada, it could be beneficial for both sides, except unlike Canada, it's much more feasible for the reasons you and Justin said.

You just made me think quickly of what the United States originally counted.

with federalism meant to be is that we are all little city-states.

We are all little countries,

right?

It's kind of a

neat way of thinking about it that I wish every country that way went off.

We're all states.

If our federal government was actually not as big as it is, we would be, I think that was the vision to have that type of thing.

Yeah, provinces.

Yeah, it's a weird conversation.

And maybe, in fact, I know my opinion might be kind of controversial here, but like,

Greenland and Canada and Europe, they're all basically our states anyways.

We just like don't let them vote.

We let them have little municipal governments that have a lot of authority over themselves instead.

And like, I know this is like a crude way to put it, but to some extent, that's just true that the last 20 years, these countries have basically done what the US wanted in exchange.

We protect them more or less.

That's one of the things Trump has brought up.

I do think that

way of doing things is being shaken up right now.

I think the reason you see a lot of European leaders very confused is the best word for it is they sort of don't know what the world looks like if the United States is not like allowing them to be part of their protectorate, right?

And so, yeah, it's true that they can't vote for our presidents in Europe or Canada or Greenland or these sorts of countries.

But for the most part, these countries supported us in everything that we did and we protected them in any sort of like threat.

You know, the best example of this not happening was like when France refused to help us in the Iraq war or whatever.

But that was a massive thing.

It's like, how dare France not help us in our military campaign in the Middle East?

It's like, if you think about that sentence for two seconds, it's like, what on earth would France have to do with it?

That sort of indignation only makes sense when you realize, oh, France is supposed to basically be ours is the mindset that's going on there, which means they have to do the things that we want.

So.

That's what makes this a weird conversation.

It's like the US has had so much hegemony in the West for so long that it sort of feels like all these countries are states of the US already.

I think the past day of doing things would be to say, of course not.

Greenland is its own country.

What we're going to do is we're just going to open up a strategic military base on Greenland, which only has 55,000 people under whatever.

And our military base will have 20,000 people added or something like that.

And so we will de facto control that while of course paying lip service to the idea that you guys are really in control.

And I think Peter's right that that's kind of ending and it's unclear what's

happening next.

That was essentially what we did to Ukraine for a while.

Alright, well that looks like a good spot to wrap.

So this has been a production of the Gordon Institute here at Ottawa University.

I'd like to thank you all for listening.

If I start reading helps other people find us, otherwise just pass this along to your friends and family that might like to take a listen.

Other than that, be fruitful and multiply.

Thanks.

If

you're enjoying this KXEL podcast, then we invite you to listen to KXEL's great programming in real time too!

You can hear us on the radio, statewide at AM 1540 and in the Cedar Valley at FM 100.5.

We stream live on the web, not only through KXEL.com, but also through our free KXEL mobile app.

And Alexa knows how to find us too.

It's where Iowa comes to talk, News Talk 1540, KXEL.

We're listening to the Jacobson Group on KXEL 1540 AM, rolling out, undulating, caroming to 14 stages in the Big Ten area as well as two

Canadian provinces on America's original 50,000 curtail blow torch 1540 and also on our Sea Rapids FM 100.5 This will be racked up for replaying perpetuity on the podcast that will be up on Monday go to kxl.com slash Jacobson the Danish S E N John Jacobson here want to thank our sponsors Midwest renewable energy LLC

Energy for strong America, renewable fuels, is lean, is clean, and it's green.

We thank Jim and Cindy Janron also for their sponsorship of the show through LifeRunners.

Go to LifeRunners.org, get your t-shirt run and walk for life, like my lovely and gracious Debra does, building a culture of life, helping expectant mothers and their babies on the way and after they are born.

And thanks to Hame's Homes,

the homes people for over a half a century now out of Southwest Cedar Rapids, beautiful, affordable, and safe manufactured homes.

And the Courtney Institute, the Teach and Think Tank at Ottawa University in Kansas, bringing free market economics to the next generation of Americans.

Ladies and gentlemen, we've got a great cast for you today.

We've got the Crypto King and the Banking Magnet and the Campaign Consultant, par excellence,

Craig Bergman we have the lawyer mayor and the I call him the the military intel man of danger Curtis Bauer we have Bonapastore in the conscience of the conservative Sam Jones and we have the popular philosopher pundit who's married to Kelsey Joel Curtinitis issue one

Old state, new state, old state, new state.

Kim Reynolds is out.

A la Lyndon Baines Johnson, Harry S. Truman.

Pressured not to run for a third term.

Why did she leave the race?

I go to you, Craig Bergman.

Well, John, you know that you and I have actually been talking about this possibility for almost a year now.

And I've been talking about it even longer.

Adam Greg was pushed out of the way and that very liberal senator was put in there.

I said like Patrick Henry, I smell a rat.

I'm still not convinced she's gonna finish out her term when they can do an appointment and make front runner status.

So I expect still at least a 50-50 chance of getting the

Due to family situations beyond my control speech.

Fascinating.

Hour of Bower power, what say you?

Aye.

Wow.

Ho ho.

That's a, that's a, that's a difficult, that's a difficult touch, huh?

You know, it's going to be that, that thing where...

I'm going to go down the rabbit hole.

I'm going to say, you know what?

I don't think she was going to be able to get President Trump's support.

And she knew it.

That's what

I'm saying.

But I think you're hitting close to home, Mr. Bauer.

Pastor Sam, what say you?

Yeah, you know, John, I think that the the reason she's not running again is because she's she's kind of afraid of what what lies on that.

The other end of the tunnel after the primary and that's Rob sand.

I mean, he's raising money like crazy.

And I think that she's afraid that there's not much of a chance that she could win when it comes to this.

And so I think that that's probably why she didn't want to run again, trying to keep that that unvarnished record safe.

Joel Curtinitis with a rye grin here on the zoom feed.

What say you Joel?

Oh, it's too early for me to be rye.

I think that's just sincerity.

You're seeing

So I think it's a combination of factors.

I do think that Governor Reynolds had ambitions beyond Iowa with the incoming last Trump turn that I don't think were fulfilled.

I think she got overlooked for a couple of those things.

And I think that at that point you start looking at your legacy instead.

And I think she's making a play to go out on top right now.

She's got a pretty winning record here in Iowa.

And I think that she looks ahead and sees a potential chance for that to be besmirched and not to belittle the family factors.

I know that that is a big thing as well.

But I do think there's political motivations as well to that.

Issue two, as we roll through here on Cancel, we have now a competitive, again, governor's race.

Rob Sand knows secret, raising millions of dollars at calendar year end, over eight million in the bank.

He's polling well.

He's the obvious Democrat nominee who resources may all

gather around because of a weak bench.

We're going to go with Bauer this time, Curtis.

How competitive will this be?

Can Ron Sand win?

I

think he stands a really good chance of winning, yes.

Here's the thing.

For a Democrat, he's very moderate and is very appealing to the Iowa voters.

I mean, here's the thing.

He's already selling it as the auditor because he's saying, hey, I'm the taxpayers watchdog.

I mean you look at it objectively even from a political science point of view What's the biggest takeaway and I and Sam Jones and I talked about this before We've seen really good candidates and we've seen really crappy candidates and the crappy candidates win because they got those three or four catchphrases that they take away from every damn meeting So you're making me

squeal Curtis power

You're making me squeal.

Pastor Sam Jones, catchphrase is Rob Sand.

Does he have a catchphrase or is there more depth there than even

that?

You know, I think he probably does have a few catchphrases, John, and I think that there might be some depth there.

In fact, I think that the Democrats and I are trying to make a little bit of a play of coming back to the center in a little bit away from insanity.

Now, this isn't, I'm not necessarily saying the

uh... that the average democrat voter necessarily or the ones that you're gonna hear screaming down at the state capitol but those are going to be running for uh... for office especially higher office led by uh... rob sand i think that that's probably the play that they're going to be making uh... and i think that he stands a chance because of the money that he's bringing in uh... but it's not going to be easy although i do have to ask the question with republicans like these who needs democrats anyway

Well, other than the Dutch Calvinists who will never wander, Joel Hurtnitis, can Rob Sand appeal to the great others and win a general election?

I

think it's possible.

I mean, I've sat down with Rob before.

He knows how to pitch to a general Iowa sentiment, but he doesn't really have a commanding presence.

I think it's going to be a referendum on how far money can go.

in iowa retail politics still i mean we saw last time around we saw uh Chapman lose his seat to um oh i came sarah uh

Gary it out here in Dallas County.

That was unexpected, but the amount of money, the disparity in money made a huge difference there.

And I think that's really what it's going to come down to because Iowa is still a red state.

We have become increasingly red.

I think that's an uphill battle for Rob demographically.

And he's got a lot that can be hung over his head, particularly during the BLM riots that he's very vulnerable in a lot of these areas.

At the same time, it's going to be, you know, to Sam's point, whether we find a quality candidate who can actually make

can pay for those remarks or whether it's going to fly under the radar.

These are great takes, guys.

You'll listen to the Jacobson report here, the Jacobson Group on KXEL.

Last word of this segment, we go to you, Mr. Bergman, Crypto King, the Bitcoin by Tumenuzzar.

Well,

Kim won by 17 points, yet her internal polling rumors have her down by 10.

So where do those 27 points go?

They're on this phone call.

It's not that she's too conservative.

It's that she wasn't anywhere near conservative, libertarian, or Christian and ran as those things and then governed like a center squish.

If we get a real candidate, he won't need money.

We will show up at 17 points, even if 10 of them swing the other way, he'll win by 7.

So it's all about can we find someone that isn't milk toast.

You beg the question beautifully, issue 3.

Setting the field and narrowing the field.

Jacobson's going to go with the elite age.

Feel free to add to or subtract.

Two minutes each.

Tell me who's win place and show.

Give me your top three and your odds on favorite.

I'm going to mention the following.

Brad Sherman, Brenner Bird, Mike Nag, Matt Whitaker, Pat Grassley, Bobby Kaufman, Kerry Lake and Steve King to round out this great quarter final.

And so in round three, first up this time is Pastor Sam Jones.

Who's your three out of there or is there a wild card and who's the odds on favorite right now in the GOP nomination at this juncture Sam?

Yeah, well, I mean obviously to start with we've got Brad Sherman.

He's already in the race So I think we have to throw him in the in in the top three right away There he's he's only number one right now, right?

Um the the other two that I would throw in there.

I would definitely say Unfortunately, I think that

Kim Reynolds underway out.

She's not being very nice.

She's giving us the bird.

And so I think that Brenna is probably got to be number two in here.

Her statement that she put out really kind of makes you go, why would you put this statement out?

about basically saying that her and her husband are thinking about what's going to be happening.

What is their future?

She has infrastructure within a campaign in order to run one.

So I would say that odds on favorite of her running and getting the brand stat or Kim Reynolds machine, the girl power machine behind her is probably large.

And then I would just say a kind of a dark horse here.

I'm gonna go with Kauffman as the dark horse here, Bobby Kauffman.

I think that he would be a candidate who, if he ran, he could probably win.

There, I don't know if that's really where his ambition lies, but I think that he would probably be a pretty strong candidate.

Out of these three, I mean, when it comes to political analysis, I think the betting favorite, in my mind, has to be Brenna Bird, because until the machine's broken, you just kind of pick the machine.

I mean, it's, you know,

debt taxes and uh brasilian brent stab don't lose in iowa that's kind of the uh the laws that you can't get around here

solid take out of the gate from jones joel curtainitis do you consult with kelsey before making announcements

uh yes any announcement worth making but there

are increasingly

few of those

we're top three out of my elite eight or do you have a wild card

uh i'm i'm

I'm thinking that Burt is probably going to be that next one.

There's a formula within the Iowa GOP for higher office, and I think she fits the bill for that formula.

And her history is such that it just sort of fits.

I agree with a lot of Sam's analysis on that.

Kaufman would be a strong player.

I don't see Whitaker giving up where he's at, and several of the others would be sort of DOA just for their stances here.

And I don't think they can make a play.

I don't think there's going to be a lot of surprises.

When it comes to the primary, I think Sherman's got an uphill slog.

Love what he's doing.

We'd have to consolidate in a way that Iowa conservatives have historically had a hard time consolidating early in the race.

That was Joel Curtinitis, ladies and gentlemen.

Now we go to Craig Bergman.

Bergman, Meister, Meister Bergman, what say you?

Alright, look, if Brenna Byrd is our nominee, then Rob Sands is our governor.

She is so weak and so vulnerable and so absolutely milk toast, Brad Sherman could beat her in a primary.

That said, the correct candidate to beat is Matt Whitaker.

The plan has always been from Matt and his little lawyer group to do this.

He absolutely will walk away from a NATO gig to be governor that sets him up to be president.

No doubt whatsoever.

And if he gets Trump's endorsement, he will raise $25 million and make the haul that Joni Ernst got nationally look pale.

So I am all in on Whitaker.

simply because he fits the bill way more than little Brenna that they almost abused and abandoned for the 20 years.

She was trying to be Attorney General in her youth when she graduated from Drake and was college Republican girl.

They're not going to give that to her.

No chance.

Wow, a bold take from Craig Bergman.

Curtis Bauer, what say you?

And you notice in my list,

I had several male candidates.

Uh, is there still a prohibition on males running for office in Iowa, Curtis Bauer?

I don't think there's a prohibition on males now.

Just on

the Republican side.

Not even on the Republican side because here's what I'll tell you.

I, I, I partially agree with Craig.

I partially agree with Joel, but where I, I'm going to split the difference.

The differences is.

Think I'm gonna go that if Bobby were to throw his hat in the ring Bobby would kill it Practicality Tells me Matt Whitaker has no interest in coming back to Iowa.

That's why he's made all of his big moves out in Washington now he's sitting at NATO and It would be a devastating pay cut to come back to Iowa to be the governor um

With that said, though, I'm not even impressed with Attorney General Byrd right now as the Attorney General.

I mean, statistically speaking, I evaluate cases all the time.

And statistically speaking, I think that her office's prosecutorial tactics are poor.

I think that she's setting people up for failure.

And I think it's going to leave the door wide open.

for Robson to walk into Tersell.

That's a legal expert opinion from Curtis Bauer.

Do not underestimate the Bauer power issue four.

In our homage to John McLaughlin with that great team music, you hear Mike Shane playing that inimitable music.

We are recreating the homage of the McLaughlin group.

We've got our four panelists here of

Sam Jones, Joel Curtinitis, Craig Bergman, and Curtis Bauer on KXEL, the Jacobson Group here on this Saturday morning, issue for wither the Grassley Bransad Machine.

And is this the end of the lame duck trifecta?

Where do we go from here?

Are we seeing the end of the half-century-long Grassley Bransad Machine and

Can this lame duck trifecta do anything next year?

Are they limping out into going out with a whimper, not a bang?

I start with you, Joel Curtinitis.

No, I don't think so at all.

They're smart and motivated, and they have a dynasty pre-selected in most cases to carry the torch forward.

I don't think they're going away.

And I think that was evidenced by the fact that they were so quick to wrap themselves around Donald Trump.

because I think they realized where the winds were shifting.

I think they wanted to get in front of that as quickly as possible.

And I think to a large extent they succeeded in doing that.

That's a power consolidation play.

And now any attempt to roll them back in that regard would put

basically the, you know, MAGA folks and sort of that new wave conservatism against the old school guys.

And I just don't think that, once again, consolidation is and historically has been the issue for Iowa conservatives.

I don't see any resistance really being able to consolidate against them super effectively at this particular

time.

Well, I'm going to start by saying that I agree with Joel's answer to your question, but I take issue with the substance of your question.

Brandstad was never a power.

Grassley was never a power.

They are tools.

That's why it took Grassley 40 years to get a chairmanship because everyone in the Senate knew he was a numbskull.

And Branstad, I've watched him in private fundraisers where they're $10,000 a plate back in the day when I was in those groups and hanging out.

And he bows his head in kowtows to the big ag, big ethanol, Iowa industry, insurance companies.

They will pick the governor and they are going to pick Rob Sands.

And it doesn't matter who else happens, the only one that can beat them, I'll go back to it, is a Donald J. Trump firebrand.

We have one shot.

Birdman in our face, Curtis Bauer.

Your take.

So this is the interesting dichotomy, right?

Brad Sherman's already announced, and we know that Brad Sherman is in tight with Donald Trump.

But we also know that Brenna Byrd,

is in tight with Donald Trump.

And Brenna Bird we know is the money-making powerhouse, right?

When it goes back to this brand-stead, grassy thing, you know, I gotta be honest with ya.

I'm leaning towards a green with Bergman a little bit that it just never was a thing that...

I don't know.

Wow.

It sets up an interesting dichotomy where I look at it and I go, you know, if this was an extension of Grassley and Branstad, then Branna is going to be in.

And I don't know who would set up the interesting question of who's going to be the

The lieutenant governor, you know, so that's gonna be the interesting thing if that's the case But I still think with everything on the table Rob sands gonna claim the clock if we're not careful

I Predict you'll have 15 million raised by the 4th of July pastor Sam.

Tell the sheep.

What do you see?

You know, first of all, John, I have to say, has it only been half a century that, uh, ran

fat and

Grassley had been running?

Because I feel like it, you know, it's been longer than that.

I will say, Sam, let me interrupt.

Tell you, Senator Grassley's first in elected public office, the American flag only had 48 stars.

Wow.

True.

I

mean,

that's incredible.

59 Iowa legislature, 1959, 48 states.

That that is absolutely incredible, but when looking at this, you know, I do think it's a machine that's there and it's interesting the numbers that Craig brought up earlier about that that 15% essentially here that's that's out or that 10 to 12% that's that's really kind of in the middle.

or that has dropped off from Kim Reynolds.

And I think that that's really the dissenting from that Grassley brand stat machine.

I mean, you could run my dog on the ballot and he would get 10 to 15% in the primary against Grassley or a brand stat candidate just to dissent.

The question is though, is how do you bridge that other 35%?

How do you get that 35 to 40%?

And I just see it really being an uphill battle, not impossible.

But what it's going to take is the will of the people.

And most importantly, I think it's going to take the voice of pastors speaking out and saying, look, we are going to say we've had enough voting red and getting Democrat policies or enough voting red and not getting anything.

We are going to say we will not support a candidate unless they agree to sign a bill that would abolish abortion.

That's what I'm going to put forth.

But if the pastors don't do that,

I, I just don't see how brand stat, uh, machine and grass and machine can be defeated in this.

Guys, we now move to our last segment, predictions.

30 seconds each.

You may predict anything statewide.

That's what we've talked about.

Choosing the Democrat Republican nominees who will win the nomination, whether we'll retain the trifecta, any other moves by Iowans or who will win the Trump trade war with China or what will happen nationally.

I'm going to start with predictions.

I predict that within three weeks, Joel Curtinitis and Craig Bergman will enter a titanic tariff debate that will be heard on regional radio, not just on KXEL, but all the way down to the sunflower state of Kansas at the KC Metro.

That is my prediction.

Now, I move to Curtis Bauer.

You've been down to the state house all term.

Curtis, any predictions?

Yeah.

The biggest one is is the Democrats are making a comeback, especially when you're talking about House seats.

And my intelligence ring is telling me that Chuck Eisenhart and a few other Democrats that have lost around the state have been networking and putting together plans to go back.

And their biggest focus right now is shifting that very left wing

very liberal view, more to center.

And that's what the Republicans are gonna have to be on their toes about.

That's the real issue.

Great take from Curtis.

I'm saving our two debaters for the last.

So I'm going to bring in Pastor Sam Jones.

Yeah, so my prediction is that we will have a three-way primary, not just a two-person primary, but they're going to be

two more candidates that put their name there in the Republican side of things and throw their hats into the ring to go against Brad Sherman.

I think we're at least going to have a three-way race.

I don't think it's going to be just one-on-one versus Brad Sherman.

And our two final debate combatants.

Time to talk, Joel Kirtanitis.

Yeah, so I'm gonna focus a little bit on demographic shift here.

I think that Zach Nunn's district is very very much in play I don't know if he hangs on to his seat this coming election And I think that that could tilt the scale of Iowa politics as well the bastion of red that has been Dallas County is down to the wire Turning very very purple.

I think that's gonna dramatically shift future elections here even if it doesn't swing the balance of power overall and I think that's something that

people watching the actual district level voting should really keep an eye on.

Cutting edge take, the final word, Craig Bergman

predictions.

All right, so here we go.

I disagree with everyone in the entire premise.

Okay, the Democrats are not surging.

They're leftists, they're terrible, they're bad liars, their base won't let them.

They are gonna pick up a couple seats.

but it's not the empire strikes back happening here.

It's a fizzle and Rob Sands, although he wins by two to four points, it is not a mandate.

It is not a realignment.

He's a Chet Culver, one and done loser who will turn back to his base, especially when there's 12 radical liberal Democrats starting to crisscross the state, trying to outdo Kamala Harris.

for the nomination, you know, after his election the last two years.

So I give this flash in the pan and only because, and this is where I go to what Sam said, the pastors aren't gonna do anything in Iowa.

Not a darn thing.

It's gonna be six of you.

And it won't make a difference.

And that's very sad.

And Brenna Bird in a three way will win.

Brad Sherman can't get 35% of the vote in the three-way.

Not in the primary, not with the grassroots turnout, not with everything that's happening.

And if he did, they'd make him the scapegoat who would lose to Sands anyway.

And he's just so bad of a candidate who doesn't know how to shake hands, make phone calls, or do any of the real work it takes to win.

So it's flashing the pan, one and done, I'm not worried about it regroup.

Guys, I want to thank the four wise men, Curtis Bauer, Joel Curtinitis, Sam Jones, Craig Bergman, and our super engineer.

Mike Shane.

This is John Jacobson here.

This is going to be on podcast, go to kxl.com slash Jacobson.

But you're listening to us live on KXL America's original 50,000 watt blowtorch 1540 AM 100.5 FM odyssey to rapids.

This signal going to 14 states, two Canadian provinces.

And Jeff Stein, the news director would want me to tell you that they've got close to a nine share in the 25 to 54 male demographic.

sponsored by Midwest Renewable Energy LLC, Energy for Strong America, Renewable Fuels, this lean that's clean and it's green, Jim and Cindy Jandron out of the northeastern plains of Nebraska, LifeRunners.org, helping expectant mothers and babies on the way.

building a culture of life from womb to tomb.

Get your free shirt on liferunners.org and run and walk for life like our students as far down as Benedictine College.

Listen to us there on KOFO and Hames Homes on a Seed Rapid Safe.

Affordable, beautiful homes.

Barbara, Hames, Brian, a worthy custodian of her father and mother's

great legacy and seed ramparts, and the Gorton Institute, the Teach and Think Tank out of the Angels Snyder College of Business at Ottawa University in Ottawa, Kansas, helping build the next generation of academic intellectuals for free markets in America.

We will see you again next week.

In the meantime, be safe, be strong, be good, be smart, love Jesus Christ,

Fire up for an awesome Holy Week here during Passion Tide and Holy Week, and God bless us, everyone!

Bye-bye!