Prager University Part 43

Prager University Part 43

  • You Can't Be Free Without This
  • The End of Women's Sports
  • Nuclear Energy: Abundant, Clean, and Safe
  • There Is No Apolitical Classroom
  • Big Tech Attacks on Freedom of Speech
  • Capitalism or Socialism: Which One Is More Democratic?

Watch a 3-hour Prager University video marathon at:



Prager University has 8 other Marathon videos at-


You Can't Be Free Without This


It wasn’t an accident that the First Amendment to the Constitution is about religious liberty. Why was it so important to the Founders? And why should it be just as important to you? Kelly Shackelford, President of First Liberty, explains.

Script: What is religious freedom? Why is it important? And why is it now under threat? "Hold on a second," I can hear you saying. "Religious freedom is threatened? Who doesn't have religious freedom in the United States? You can be a Protestant, a Catholic, a Jew, a Muslim, or a Wiccan. You can believe in anything—or nothing." This was true. But not anymore. Seems like almost every week a new dispute arises between people of faith and government agencies alleging that believers are violating the rights of non-believers, or simply violating government edicts. Given that the search for religious freedom was central to the founding of America, this is quite a reversal. As Thomas Paine put it in his influential 1776 pamphlet, Common Sense, "This new world hath been the asylum for the persecuted lovers of civil and religious liberty from every part of Europe." It wasn't an accident that the first freedom listed in the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the Constitution, is about religious liberty. Here's what it says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…" This meant the new United States would have no government-sponsored religion, as Europe had at the time, and no restrictions on how you practiced your religion.  British historian Paul Johnson draws a stark and telling contrast between the two great revolutions of the 18th century.  "The essential difference between the American Revolution and the French Revolution is that the American Revolution, in its origins, was a religious event, whereas the French Revolution was an anti-religious event. That fact was to shape the American Revolution...and determine the nature of the independent state it brought into being." Now, two centuries after the Bill of Rights, freedom of religion, one of the main goals of the American Revolution, has morphed into freedom from religion—one of the main goals of the French Revolution. That's not what any American should wish for. Here's why: because when they come for your religious freedom, they're coming for all your freedom. It's the totalitarian "tell." The giveaway. This is what the Founders understood and why they were so insistent that religious liberty be in the Constitution. To them, freedom of liberty was tantamount to freedom of thought. If you aren't free to think as you wish, you can't claim to be free. They were right. There is no example in history of a regime suppressing religious freedom and not suppressing other freedoms. One of the first things the communists did in Russia after the Russian Revolution in 1917 was to close nearly every church and take control of all religious life in the Soviet Union—Christian, Jewish, and Muslim. To this day, all religious life in China is strictly controlled by the Chinese communist government. Why do repressive governments fear religious freedom? Because it challenges the authority of the state more than any other freedom. People who adhere to a religion believe that there’s something higher than the state, and no repressive government can tolerate such a belief. That makes religion the first target of those who want ever more power—and ever more control over its citizens. That's why, even if you're not religious, if you care about freedom, you should care deeply about religious liberty. My job is to protect religious liberty. And, let me tell you, the trends are troubling. Eight years ago, my case load was 47; last year it was over 300. For the complete script visit


FOLLOW us! Facebook: 👉​ Twitter: 👉​ Instagram: 👉​ SUBSCRIBE so you never miss a new video! 👉​ To view the script, sources, quiz, visit​ Join PragerU's text list to have these videos, free merchandise giveaways and breaking announcements sent directly to your phone!​ Do you shop on Amazon? Click​ and a percentage of every Amazon purchase will be donated to PragerU. Same great products. Same low price. Shopping made meaningful. SHOP! Love PragerU? Now you can wear PragerU merchandise! Visit our store today!


The End of Women's Sports



Selina Soule was one of the top five female high school sprinters in Connecticut... until competing against biological boys changed the game. Now, women aren’t just losing their races — they’re losing their chances to compete at all. Why is this happening? And what should we do about it?


Script: I’ve been training to be a championship sprinter since I was eight years old. With the help of my parents, my coaches, and my teammates, I did it: By sophomore year of high school, in 2018, I was one of the top five female high school sprinters in Connecticut.  But then, one day, I wasn’t.  At the state championships that year, two people passed me—passed all of us girls. Literally. They finished first and second in our races, dominating the field. Were they more motivated? Did they train harder? I don’t think so.  But they did have an edge—a big one we couldn’t match. They were biological boys who said they were transgender girls. Do you think that’s fair—males competing against females? Before you make up your mind, let me tell you a bit about what it took for me to become a top female sprinter. It meant training with my team every day after school for at least two hours, working to shave fractions of a second off of my time in the 100- and 200-meter dash.  It meant not hanging out after school or going out with friends on the weekends. It meant getting up early every Saturday morning, and competing all day at a meet. It meant not indulging in any of the things that might cost me my dream. And here’s the thing about the two biological males that took the top two girls’ medals in the State of Connecticut: Their times were not even good enough to qualify them to compete in the state championships on the boys’ team.  Let me say that again, in case you missed it: Their times were not good enough to qualify them for the boys’ state championships. But two years in a row, they won first and second place competing against the girls. All in all, these two biological males won 15 women’s state championship titles. Some in the media have accused me of being a sore loser. They tell me to run harder. But the biological changes that males go through during puberty are so significant, they gain an insurmountable advantage in strength and speed. That’s why boys always competed against boys and girls against girls. U.S. runner Allyson Felix is an inspiration to me. She’s the fastest female sprinter in the world. Her lifetime best for the 400 meters is 49.26 seconds. But based on 2018 data, nearly three hundred high school boys in the U.S. alone could beat that record. What we are talking about, then, is not just boys taking women’s trophies—though they are. And we aren’t talking about biological boys taking women’s athletic scholarships—though they’ll do that, too. When biological boys are allowed to compete against girls in sports like track, where the differences in performance are so great, we are talking about girls getting shut out—never getting the chance to win, or even compete at all. When two biological boys took the first- and second-place spots against me in the 2019 indoor state championship, I lost the opportunity to participate at the New England championships. I lost the chance to be scouted by top coaches, possibly even to win scholarships.  Right now, biological boys are being allowed to set records on the girls’ team—deleting girls’ records, erasing the achievements of actual girls, and setting a standard probably no girl can meet no matter how much she trains or how hard she tries. The reason that we have girls’ sports in the first place is to give female athletes with talent, hard work, and dedication an equal opportunity to shine and be recognized. But girls will never have that opportunity if they are forced to compete with biological boys in sports like track and field, softball, volleyball, or basketball. Women fought too hard, for too long, so girls like me can have the opportunity to compete on a level playing field.  For the complete script visit


Nuclear Energy: Abundant, Clean, and Safe


If you truly want to save the planet from global warming, there’s one energy source that can do it. It’s not wind or solar. It’s not coal, oil or natural gas, either. So what is it? Michael Shellenberger, founder of Environmental Progress, has the answer in this important video.

Script: France gets 70% of its power from one carbon-free source. Sweden 40%. Switzerland 36%. The United States 20%. For those who wish to create a world free of carbon emissions, France is clearly the role model.  That source of energy, by the way, is not solar or wind. It’s not coal, oil or natural gas, either. It’s nuclear.  Nuclear energy is not only cleaner than all other forms of energy. It’s also cheaper to create, abundant and safe.  Yes, safe. So, if the world is going to end in a few years because of global warming due to rising CO2 levels, why aren’t we going all out to produce this abundant, clean and safe form of energy? Why aren’t there dozens of nuclear power plants in development all over the world?  Well, we all know the answer, right? Nuclear energy is just too risky… too dangerous. So, even though we’re told we’re facing an “existential crisis”—which means humans may cease to exist; even though we might all wither away in unbearable heat; or starve because of world-wide droughts; or drown in rising seas; or be killed in Mad Max-style riots—nuclear energy is off the table… because… it’s too darn risky.  Hmmm. I want to be sure I have this right. The goal is to save humanity…There’s a way to save humanity…And we won’t take it. Because we’re afraid, there might be a bad accident… or something.  Does that make sense to you? Because it doesn’t to me.   But maybe I’m not giving enough weight to the safety argument, so let’s take a closer look at that since no one, not even the most radical environmentalist, disputes that nuclear power produces massive amounts of energy cleanly and efficiently.  Safety, like everything else, is a matter of context. So, here’s some context. 1.4 million people die worldwide every year in traffic accidents, 2.3 million in work-related accidents, 4.2 million from air pollution. Deaths directly related to nuclear power? Under 200—not annually but in the entire history of the nuclear power industry.  But what about those famous nuclear disasters we’ve all heard so much about? Didn’t they poison untold thousands? Three Mile Island in 1979, Chernobyl in 1986 and Fukushima in 2011.  Okay, let’s deal with each one.   Three Mile Island: There was an accident at the plant, yes, but the amount of radiation that leaked was no more than one might receive taking a chest x-ray. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission acknowledged as much four weeks after the initial media hysteria died down. “We goofed,” the commission told Congress.  “There was no danger of any hydrogen explosion.'' But that didn’t grab the headlines.  Chernobyl:  The accident developed into a catastrophe only because of pitiful safety procedures unique to the Soviet Union. It would never have occured in the West. Even so, initial reports of radiation leakage turned out to be grossly exaggerated. According to the World Health Organization, “As of mid-2005”—that’s 19 years after the explosion—“fewer than 50 deaths had been directly attributed to radiation from the disaster.”  Fukushima: In 2011, as a result of an earthquake and tsunami, the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant was destroyed, and nuclear radiation was released. Yet, despite the media hysteria, not one person at the power plant died because of radiation leaks. The deaths that occurred in the area were the result of the tsunami.  Well, what about nuclear waste? Surely that’s terribly harmful.  Actually, no. All the nuclear waste ever generated in the US can fit on a single football field stacked less than seventy feet high. It’s easily and safely buried in steel canisters encased in concrete.  For the complete script visit


There Is No Apolitical Classroom


Do you know what’s going on in your kid’s school? The three R’s – reading, writing, and arithmetic – have taken a back seat to a fourth R. Max Eden, Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute, explains what that fourth R is, and why it’s so destructive.

Script: Do you know what's going on in your kid's school? If not, now would be a good time to take a look. Here's what you're likely to find: According to the education establishment, the purpose of public education is no longer just to teach "the three R's" — reading, writing, and arithmetic; it is to awaken students to the fact that they live in a country that has been, remains, and will probably always be… racist. Here's how the American Association of School Administrators (AASA) recently described its mission: "…At a time of obscene inequities…merely trying to compensate is not enough… AASA's work… must go further and become actively anti-racist." Being anti-racist sounds simple and laudable: treat everyone the same—a version of the Golden Rule. What could be wrong with that? Nothing. Except that's not what the educational elite means by anti-racism. Anti-racism, in its current formulation, does not mean equal treatment of others; it is an all-encompassing ideology that demands that white people accept that their behavior is either implicitly or explicitly racist—and has been for at least 400 years. The Catch-22 here is that to say you're not racist only proves how racist you really are; that is, you are so racist you don't even know it. And if this accusation upsets you, that's proof of your white fragility. Education Week's "Classroom Q&A" blog tells teachers that "As Ibram X. Kendi (the author of "How to Be an Anti-Racist") would say, there is no 'not racist.' There is only racist and anti-racist. Your silence favors the status quo and the violently oppressive harm it does to black and brown folk everywhere." What Kendi is saying is, if you don't voice active agreement with him, you are a racist. And if you treat people equally regardless of race, you're also a racist. Anti-racists embrace racial discrimination, as long as it's done on their terms. As Kendi has said: "The only remedy to racist discrimination is anti-racist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination." I understand how wrong this might sound. It turns the Martin Luther King concept of racial equality on its head. But that's exactly the point. Lorena German, who chairs the Committee on Anti-Racism for the National Council on the Teaching of English, makes this clear. At the height of the recent urban unrest, German wrote that arsonists should serve as a model for teachers: "Educators, what are you burning? Your white-centered curriculum? ...The school's racist policies? Your racist ass principal? The funding for the police in schools vs. counselors? WHAT ARE YOU BURNING???!!?!?!?!?" German's call to commit arson may have been metaphorical, but her call to get rid of the traditional school curriculum is not. A lesson plan created by the New York City Culturally Responsive Education Working Group, "Transforming Our Public Schools: A Guide to Culturally Responsive and Sustaining Education," tells teachers that "the whole Western canon is rife with horrible stories and atrocities of who we are as people of color." For their part, the National Committee on Social Studies has promised to "flood our children with counter messages…until there is no racial inequality in economic opportunity, no racial inequality in education, no racial inequality in incarceration rates, and no brutality from police and others." If that sounds to you a lot more like political indoctrination than education, you would be right. New York State now encourages teachers to "incorporate current events, even if they are controversial, into instruction" and to "utilize tools... that encourage students to engage with difficult topics (power, privilege, access, inequity) constructively." For the complete script visit


Big Tech Attacks on Freedom of Speech


Tulsi Gabbard is right. When foreign leaders seem more concerned than our leaders about Big Tech attacks on freedom of speech here, we have a BIG problem. Stay up-to-date on our latest releases! 👉


Capitalism or Socialism: Which One Is More Democratic?


What is the difference between free-market capitalism and democratic socialism? And which system is actually more fair and responsive to the needs of the people? Here’s a hint: names can be deceiving. Dinesh D’Souza has the answers.

Script: Why is socialism so popular? Less than ten years ago you couldn’t refer to “socialism” in a positive way and hope to have a career in American politics. Socialism was referred to as the “s” word. Now it is affirmed, either explicitly or implicitly, by just about everyone on the Left. And, amazingly, given socialism’s record of failure, the socialists seem to be gaining ground. Why? What makes socialism so attractive to so many? Socialism, according to its proponents, is more democratic and therefore more moral than capitalism. Leftist filmmaker Michael Moore explains it for us. “Democratic socialism means everyone has a seat at the table and everybody gets a slice of the pie.” The famed socialist writer Irving Howe wrote something similar in his 1982 autobiography, “We believe that the democracy…in our political life should also be extended deeply into economic life.” The basic idea here is that socialism is vindicated through its roots in popular consent.  If a majority of people, working through their elected representatives, declares something to be a public entitlement — say free college or free healthcare — then they are justified in extracting resources from those who create wealth to pay for it. As Nathan Robinson argues in his book Why You Should Be a Socialist, the moral imperative is to place the economy under the control of “the people.” Sounds good, at least superficially… until you dig a bit below the surface. First, what direct control do “the people” really have over any government institution?  What control do the British people have over the National Health Service? What control do Americans have over the Department of Motor Vehicles or the U.S. Post Office?  The answer of course is none. Given its practical impossibility, genuine popular control over government institutions is a mirage.  Second, what if 51 percent of Americans vote to confiscate the resources of a single person, say Bill Gates?  Does that make it right?  Under an authoritarian socialist government, a single dictator seizes the fruits of your labor. Everyone is against that. Under democratic socialism, a majority does. The end result is the same -- you’ve been robbed. The fundamental problem with democratic socialism, however, is its assumption that in a free market system, the economy is not under the control of the people. This is exactly the opposite of how things work. Let me explain. Each of us are not only citizens; we are also consumers.  These are overlapping categories: every citizen is a consumer, and every consumer is also a citizen.  The consumer, like the citizen, is a voter.  As citizens, we vote once every two or four years; as consumers, we vote many times a day. The citizen votes with a ballot which costs him nothing, except the inconvenience of going to the polls.  The consumer votes with his money which costs him a lot — all the time and effort he put in to earn that money. Only a fraction of citizens are eligible to vote at the ballot box, but every consumer votes in the marketplace—even felons, even children.  Illegal aliens cannot vote for political candidates, but they too vote with their money. Moreover, citizens participate in a system of representative democracy -- their views are filtered through the politicians who represent them. Consumers, by contrast, vote in a system of direct democracy. If you prefer an Audi to a Lexus or the Apple iPhone to the Samsung Galaxy, you don’t have to elect some other guy to exercise these preferences; you do it directly yourself, by paying for them.  Here we see the secret of how those billionaires like Jeff Bezos got so rich.  We made them rich!  The inequality that socialists complain about is the result of popular mandate.  Want fewer billionaires? Stop buying their stuff! For the complete script visit:



Visit Pragertopia 

The first month is 99 cents. After the first month the cost is $7.50 per month. If you can afford to pay for only one podcast, this is the one we recommend. It is the best conservative radio show out there, period. ACU strongly recommends ALL ACU students and alumni subscribe to Pragertopia. Do it today!

 You can listen to Dennis from 9 a.m. to Noon (Pacific) Monday thru Friday, live on the Internet 


For a great archive of Prager University videos visit-


Donate today to PragerU!

Get PragerU bonus content for free!

Download Pragerpedia on your iPhone or Android! Thousands of sources and facts at your fingertips. iPhone: Android:

Join Prager United to get new swag every quarter, exclusive early access to our videos, and an annual TownHall phone call with Dennis Prager!

Join PragerU's text list to have these videos, free merchandise giveaways and breaking announcements sent directly to your phone!

Do you shop on Amazon? Click and a percentage of every Amazon purchase will be donated to PragerU. Same great products. Same low price. Shopping made meaningful.

VISIT PragerU!

FOLLOW us! Facebook:



PragerU is on Snapchat!

JOIN PragerFORCE! For Students:

JOIN our Educators Network!



The Rational Bible: Exodus by Dennis Prager  


"Dennis Prager has put together one of the most stunning commentaries in modern times on the most profound document in human history. It's a must-read that every person, religious and non-religious, should buy and peruse every night before bed. It'll make you think harder, pray more ardently, and understand your civilization better." — Ben Shapiro, host of "The Ben Shapiro Show"

"Dennis Prager’s commentary on Exodus will rank among the greatest modern Torah commentaries. That is how important I think it is. And I am clearly not alone... It might well be on its way to becoming the most widely read Torah commentary of our time—and by non-Jews as well as by Jews." — Rabbi Joseph Telushkin, bestselling author of Jewish Literacy

Why do so many people think the Bible, the most influential book in world history, is outdated? Why do our friends and neighbors – and sometimes we ourselves – dismiss the Bible as irrelevant, irrational, immoral, or all of these things? This explanation of the Book of Exodus, the second book of the Bible, will demonstrate that the Bible is not only powerfully relevant to today’s issues, but completely consistent with rational thought.

Do you think the Bible permitted the trans-Atlantic slave trade? You won’t after reading this book.

Do you struggle to love your parents? If you do, you need this book.

Do you doubt the existence of God because belief in God is “irrational?” This book will give you reason after reason to rethink your doubts.

The title of this commentary is, “The Rational Bible” because its approach is entirely reason-based. The reader is never asked to accept anything on faith alone. As Prager says, “If something I write does not make rational sense, I have not done my job.”

The Rational Bible is the fruit of Dennis Prager’s forty years of teaching the Bible to people of every faith, and no faith. On virtually every page, you will discover how the text relates to the contemporary world and to your life.

His goal: to change your mind – and then change your life.


Highly Recommended by ACU.

Purchase his book at-



The Rational Bible: Genesis by Dennis Prager 

USA Today bestseller

Publishers Weekly bestseller

Wall Street Journal bestseller

Many people today think the Bible, the most influential book in world history, is not only outdated but irrelevant, irrational, and even immoral.

This explanation of the Book of Genesis, the first book of the Bible, demonstrates clearly and powerfully that the opposite is true. The Bible remains profoundly relevant—both to the great issues of our day and to each individual life. It is the greatest moral guide and source of wisdom ever written.

Do you doubt the existence of God because you think believing in God is irrational? This book will give you many reasons to rethink your doubts. Do you think faith and science are in conflict? You won’t after reading this commentary on Genesis. Do you come from a dysfunctional family? It may comfort you to know that every family discussed in Genesis was highly dysfunctional!

The title of this commentary is “The Rational Bible” because its approach is entirely reason-based. The reader is never asked to accept anything on faith alone. In Dennis Prager’s words, “If something I write is not rational, I have not done my job.”

The Rational Bible is the fruit of Dennis Prager’s forty years of teaching the Bible—whose Hebrew grammar and vocabulary he has mastered—to people of every faith and no faith at all. On virtually every page, you will discover how the text relates to the contemporary world in general and to you personally. His goal: to change your mind—and, as a result, to change your life.


Highly Recommended by ACU.

Purchase his book at-


Prager University Video Marathon.


Watch this 3-hour Prager U video marathon


Ugg- I was going to add all of them but…

Prager University has 8 other Marathon videos at-


Share | Download(Loading)

Episodes Date

Load more

Podbean App

Play this podcast on Podbean App