Michelle Thibeau served in the U.S. Army Special Operations Command in Afghanistan. As a woman and a soldier, she knows that there are many roles in the armed forces that women can and should fill. Is combat one of them? Do you think women belong in combat? Let us know what you think 👉 https://l.prageru.com/3KZKFjh 📲 Watch our content ad-free on our app: https://prageru.onelink.me/3bas/vgyxvm79 Donate to PragerU: https://l.prageru.com/4jiAT85 Follow PragerU: Instagram ➡️ (https://www.instagram.com/prageru/) X ➡️ (https://twitter.com/prageru) Facebook ➡️ (https://www.facebook.com/prageru/) TikTok ➡️ (https://www.tiktok.com/@prageru) Transcript: Do Women Belong in Combat? Presented by Michelle Thibeau Women do not belong in combat. I say this as a woman—and a soldier. I’ve seen war firsthand, in all its ugliness and brutality. In 2017, I served in the U.S. Army Special Operations Command in Afghanistan. My job was to engage with local women—something my male colleagues were discouraged from doing, because of religious and cultural barriers. That access was critical to our mission. I saw up close what our warfighters had to do to succeed, to survive, and to protect civilians. I was as close to combat as you could get. And I thank God I didn’t get any closer. I’m proud of my military service. There are many roles in the armed forces that women can and should fill. But combat is not one of them. Until recently, it was conventional wisdom not to put women on the front lines. The principle that combat is a male burden has been nearly universal across civilizations. There’s an obvious reason for this. Men are, on average, stronger, faster, and more capable of delivering— and withstanding—extreme violence. That’s not a stereotype. It’s basic physiology. And common sense tells us: a society that places women—the bearers of new life—on the front lines is not prioritizing its future. Yet in 2015, the Obama administration ordered the full integration of women into all military combat roles, including special operations and mixed-gender infantry units. At the time, many of us in uniform knew this was a mistake. And we had the data to prove it. A U.S. Marine Corps study that same year found that all-male units outperformed mixed-gender units in nearly every measurable category. Mixed units had slower times in obstacle courses. Women were six times more likely to suffer musculoskeletal injuries than men. Women took longer to evacuate wounded comrades to safety. Where male Marines could do single-person lifts, female Marines often had to revert to two-person drags, which were slower and less efficient. In war, those gaps aren’t theoretical—they’re fatal. Military experts, including those in the Israel Defense Forces, have identified additional concerns: in mixed-gender combat units, the Israelis found, male soldiers often shifted focus away from the mission to protect their female comrades — their natural instinct — even if it risked compromising mission goals. And there’s another obvious problem: As Anna Simons, Professor of Defense Analysis at the Naval Postgraduate School, observes: “Men and women have been each other’s most consistent distraction since the beginning of time. To pretend that we don’t know what will happen when men and women are thrown together for prolonged periods in emotionally intense situations defies common sense.” Preparing for battle and battle itself is stressful enough. Why would we want to introduce sexual tension into the mix? Not to mention the strain this places on supervising officers who now have to deal with sexual dynamics in addition to their traditional responsibilities. Does this sound like a strategy for mission success? But all these warnings were ignored. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta famously said, “If [women] can meet the qualifications for the job, then they should have the right to serve…” But when women couldn’t meet those standards, the response wasn’t to rethink the policy—it was to lower the standards. When two women graduated Ranger School in 2015, it was only after multiple attempts and what military insiders described as “unusual command interest.” At West Point, physical tests have employed gender-adjusted thresholds. In the Army Physical Fitness Test, male soldiers had to perform 84 push-ups in two minutes—women, just 42. ...access the full transcript here 👉 https://l.prageru.com/47epnWo

Barack Obama promised to fundamentally transform America. Over two terms in office, he did just that—on race, healthcare, and foreign policy. But was it change for the better? Carol Swain examines the impact of the 44th president and the legacy he left behind. 📲 Watch our content ad-free on our app: https://prageru.onelink.me/3bas/vgyxvm79 Donate to PragerU: https://l.prageru.com/4jiAT85 Follow PragerU: Instagram ➡️ (https://www.instagram.com/prageru/) X ➡️ (https://twitter.com/prageru) Facebook ➡️ (https://www.facebook.com/prageru/) TikTok ➡️ (https://www.tiktok.com/@prageru) Transcript: Barack Obama: Transforming America Presented by Carol Swain Shortly before Barack Obama was elected the forty-fourth president of the United States, he told an enthusiastic crowd of supporters that he wanted to “fundamentally” transform America. Over the next eight years, America found out what he meant. Three issues epitomized the transformation Obama had in mind. Race relations. Healthcare. And foreign policy. Let’s take each one in turn. Race Relations: Could it be that when Obama said he wanted to fundamentally transform America, he was talking about a post racial society where skin color didn’t matter? Indeed, as a biracial American, half-white, half-black, he seemed the perfect figure to make this a reality. But it was not to be. Instead, Obama’s actions fueled racial division in America. In July 2009, when a white police officer briefly arrested a black Harvard professor as a suspected burglar, Obama accused the police officer, a man with no history of bigotry, of racism. In July 2013, after a Hispanic volunteer security guard was acquitted of the murder of a young black man in Florida, Obama attributed the verdict to racism. And then, in August 2014, when a black teenager who had just robbed a convenience store was shot by a white police officer in Ferguson, Missouri, Obama again charged racism. His own Justice Department later acquitted the officer of racial animus. Whereas in the decade leading up to Obama’s presidency, racial tensions had sharply declined, they were now inflamed by the man who so many Americans hoped would extinguish them. Healthcare: Where Bill Clinton had failed, Barack Obama would succeed. He would bring the United States closer to the “enlightened” nations of Europe, all of which had socialized their healthcare systems. Obama marshaled his rhetorical skills to achieve this goal. If he had to engage in outright falsehoods to get what he wanted, that was okay. “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor,” was one of his constant refrains. But it wasn’t true. Neither was his assertion that the program would save Americans thousands of dollars in healthcare costs. Despite his best efforts, Obama couldn’t sell his plan to a majority of the American people. It turned out that most of them liked the healthcare coverage they had. On Christmas Eve 2009, in the middle of the night, the Democrats rammed the 2,500-page Affordable Care Act through the Senate. Asked what was in the legislation, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi famously responded, “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it…” Within a few years, 2,500 pages turned into 11,000 pages of new regulations, healthcare costs ballooned, and many people were forced to give up the doctor they trusted. But for Obama, it was all worth it: he had transformed the nation’s healthcare system. Foreign policy: Since the Iranian Revolution in 1979, American presidents have viewed Iran as a dangerous enemy. Obama believed he could transform this adversarial relationship. The centerpiece of Obama’s new policy would be the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, popularly known as the Iran Nuclear Deal. The key feature of the plan was to limit Iran’s ability to make a nuclear weapon for fifteen years. In exchange, Obama would lift sanctions and release $150 billion dollars of Iranian assets frozen in U.S. banks. The deal deeply unsettled many Americans, including some Democrats, and especially Israel and its supporters. First, a short-term infusion of billions of dollars — almost certainly to be used to fund Israel’s enemies Hamas and Hezbollah — posed immediate danger. Second, a nuclear-armed Iran — even fifteen years in the future — threatened the existence of Israel. When Israel’s leaders strongly objected to the agreement, Obama ignored them. Knowing he couldn’t get a treaty through the Senate, Obama issued an executive order to carry out his plan. A giant military plane soon landed in Tehran with $400 million dollars in cash. ...access the full transcript here 👉 https://l.prageru.com/4n6aeMF

Even Barack Obama’s political opponents appreciated the significance of his election. The charismatic new president would take America into a post-racial future. But is that what happened? Renowned political scientist, Carol Swain, examines the 44th president's stunning rise to the nation’s top office. 📲 Watch our content ad-free on our app: https://prageru.onelink.me/3bas/vgyxvm79 Donate to PragerU: https://l.prageru.com/4jiAT85 Follow PragerU: Instagram ➡️ (https://www.instagram.com/prageru/) X ➡️ (https://twitter.com/prageru) Facebook ➡️ (https://www.facebook.com/prageru/) TikTok ➡️ (https://www.tiktok.com/@prageru)

On October 7, 2023, Hamas terrorists brutally attacked Israel, murdering over 1,200 civilians and taking 251 hostages. The world’s response? Mass rallies—in support of the attackers. Larry Elder explains why this moment is not only critical to contemporary geopolitics but is a pivot point for Western civilization. 📲 Watch our content ad-free on our app: https://prageru.onelink.me/3bas/vgyxvm79 Donate to PragerU: https://l.prageru.com/4jiAT85 Follow PragerU: Instagram ➡️ (https://www.instagram.com/prageru/) X ➡️ (https://twitter.com/prageru) Facebook ➡️ (https://www.facebook.com/prageru/) TikTok ➡️ (https://www.tiktok.com/@prageru)

“You have the right to remain silent…” It’s one of the most famous phrases in American law. But where does it come from? In Miranda v. Arizona (1966), the Supreme Court ruled that police must inform suspects of their rights before questioning. John Malcolm of The Heritage Foundation explains how that decision reshaped criminal justice—and why it remains deeply controversial. 📲 Watch our content ad-free on our app: https://prageru.onelink.me/3bas/vgyxvm79 Donate to PragerU: https://l.prageru.com/4jiAT85 Follow PragerU: Instagram ➡️ (https://www.instagram.com/prageru/) X ➡️ (https://twitter.com/prageru) Facebook ➡️ (https://www.facebook.com/prageru/) TikTok ➡️ (https://www.tiktok.com/@prageru) Transcript: Miranda v. Arizona: The Right to Remain Silent Presented by John Malcolm “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to talk to a lawyer and to have him present with you during questioning. If you cannot afford to hire a lawyer, one will be provided for you.” Anybody who has ever watched a TV cop show or a Dirty Harry movie, or read a police thriller, knows those words almost by heart. They are now part of American culture. Where did they come from? They were not the invention of a Hollywood screenwriter. They were the invention of five Supreme Court justices. The words are a paraphrase of the Court’s ruling in the 1966 landmark Supreme Court case – Miranda v. Arizona. The case involved the rights of a criminal suspect named Ernesto Miranda. Miranda was arrested in 1963 on suspicion of kidnapping and raping an 18-year-old girl. Identified by the girl in a lineup, Miranda was questioned by the police and confessed to the crime. He then wrote out his confession in his own hand. At the top of each page were the printed words: “This statement has been made voluntarily and of my own free will...” His confession was introduced at trial, and he was convicted. Miranda later appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court, arguing that he had not been advised of his right to remain silent or to have an attorney present during questioning. Therefore, he contended, his confession was invalid. In a 5-4 decision, the Court agreed. Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote the majority opinion. In-custody interrogation, Warren asserted, was by its very nature intimidating. All the advantages were with the authorities. In great detail, he laid out the many ways in which the police took advantage of the accused, often manipulating them into making confessions. This, he held, was a violation of the Fifth Amendment’s right against self-incrimination, which provides, “No person shall be… compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself...” “Without proper safeguards,” Warren wrote, “the process of in-custody interrogation… contains inherently compelling pressures which work to undermine the individual’s will to resist and to compel him to speak where he would not otherwise do so freely.” This was not a new issue. In 1936, in Brown v. Mississippi, the Court held that coerced confessions were inadmissible under the Constitution’s Due Process Clause, which states, “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…” ...access the full transcript here 👉 https://l.prageru.com/46QTq6C

Fracking: some call it one of the greatest innovations of the last fifty years. Others insist it’s an environmental disaster. Who is right? Linnea Lueken, research fellow at the Heartland Institute, sets the record straight. 📲 Watch our content ad-free on our app: https://prageru.onelink.me/3bas/vgyxvm79 Donate to PragerU: https://l.prageru.com/4jiAT85 Follow PragerU: Instagram ➡️ (https://www.instagram.com/prageru/) X ➡️ (https://twitter.com/prageru) Facebook ➡️ (https://www.facebook.com/prageru/) TikTok ➡️ (https://www.tiktok.com/@prageru)

What does it mean to be free? When Professor of Philosophy @SeanMcDowell poses this question to his students, they typically respond: “Freedom means doing whatever you want as long as you don’t hurt anyone.” But is it really as simple as that? Or is this question more complex and consequential than you might think? 📲 Watch our content ad-free on our app: https://prageru.onelink.me/3bas/vgyxvm79 Donate to PragerU: https://l.prageru.com/4jiAT85 Follow PragerU: Instagram ➡️ (https://www.instagram.com/prageru/) X ➡️ (https://twitter.com/prageru) Facebook ➡️ (https://www.facebook.com/prageru/) TikTok ➡️ (https://www.tiktok.com/@prageru) Transcript: What Does It Mean to Be Free Presented by Sean McDowell What does it mean to be free? When I pose this question to my students, here’s the answer I typically get: “Freedom means doing whatever you want.” Sometimes they’ll add “as long you don’t hurt anyone else.” If we look closely at this answer, we will see that this is not freedom at all. Doing whatever you want — even if you don’t hurt someone else — virtually guarantees that you won’t be free. It’s much more likely that you’ll be imprisoned, either by your own desires or someone else’s. It doesn’t take more than a little reflection to realize that doing whatever you want is a bad way to live. What happens if you eat everything you want? You’ll get sick, become overweight, and lack energy to do the things that a healthy person can do. That makes you less free. What about the twenty-something who lives at home and plays video games all day? That might be fun for a while, but for the long term? He’s totally dependent on his parents. He has no freedom. He lacks real meaning and the sense of purpose that comes from work and ambition. And he’s not exactly making himself a compelling candidate for the opposite sex. One day, he wakes up and he’s 30. Yeah, maybe he worked a few jobs here and there, but there’s no family, no career, no sacrifice for a greater purpose. I’ve seen this scenario play out. And so have you. It’s not pretty. And is freedom really living without boundaries? Which is better? Banging on piano keys or following an instructor who teaches you to play the piano correctly? The answer is obvious. Small children bang on keys without restraint. Making music requires discipline. We can apply this across all of life. Consider the relationship between a husband and wife. They choose to restrict their romantic affections to one another. This provides emotional security for them and their children. In this kind of environment, everyone can operate with a greater sense of freedom because there’s security, trust, and belonging. This idea — that true freedom is only possible within a framework of rules — goes way back. It’s a major theme of the Bible. You can make a case that it begins with the Bible. It’s easy to forget that in the Exodus narrative God liberated the Israelites from Egypt not so that they could do whatever they wanted, but so that they would be free to worship Him, something they could not do as Pharaoh’s slaves. Then, in the Sinai desert, He gave them Ten Commandments. What are those commandments? They are a series of restraints, the last five stated in the negative – do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, do not covet. Can you imagine what our society would be like if we all followed these simple “do nots”? Well, to paraphrase my friend Dennis Prager, we’d live in a far better world. Nobody would have to lock their doors. Nobody would have to worry about the faithfulness of their spouse or being the victim of false testimony. It’s within these restraints that we experience real freedom because, as we’ve seen, unrestrained human beings are not free. They’re prisoners of their own desires. Let’s take this one step further and consider another question. What’s so great about being free? The answer, I would suggest, is found — again — in the Bible. ...access the full transcript here 👉 https://l.prageru.com/4gpwpvQ

After radical Islamic terrorists struck the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, George W. Bush, the 43rd President of the United States, swung into action. His every thought was about keeping America safe. But 9/11 was only one of several major crises Bush would have to face. Elizabeth Spalding, senior fellow at Pepperdine University School of Public Policy, examines Bush’s challenging presidency. 📲 Watch our content ad-free on our app: https://prageru.onelink.me/3bas/vgyxvm79 Donate to PragerU: https://l.prageru.com/4jiAT85 Follow PragerU: Instagram ➡️ (https://www.instagram.com/prageru/) X ➡️ (https://twitter.com/prageru) Facebook ➡️ (https://www.facebook.com/prageru/) TikTok ➡️ (https://www.tiktok.com/@prageru) Transcript: George W. Bush: The War on Terror Presented by Elizabeth Spalding After radical Islamic terrorists struck the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, George W. Bush, the new 43rd President of the United States, swung into action. His every thought was about keeping America safe. Supported by a highly experienced team consisting of Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, Bush—himself a former Texas Air National Guard fighter pilot--declared a War on Terror. The real-life villain was Osama Bin Laden, the leader of the Islamic terrorist group Al Qaeda and the mastermind of the 9/11 attack. Bush emphasized that he would “make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them.” This put Afghanistan’s Taliban regime, which had given Al Qaeda safe haven, in the crosshairs. In October 2001, Bush ordered military action in Afghanistan. Within two months, the Taliban was overthrown, replaced by a new government friendly to the United States. Osama Bin Laden, however, evaded capture. Bush could have ended it there. But he worried that a new attack, perhaps of even greater magnitude, was inevitable. The main source of his fear was Saddam Hussein, the dictator of Iraq, and long-time sponsor of terrorism. With a history of violating UN resolutions and fierce antagonism to the U.S., Hussein boasted about his nuclear weapons program. The CIA and Great Britain’s MI6 insisted it wasn’t a bluff. The United States, Bush argued, couldn’t “wait for threats to fully materialize.” He declared that if Iraq did not abandon its “weapons of mass destruction,” America would act. When Hussein ignored him, Bush, with the support of both Republicans and Democrats, made good on his warning. In March 2003, U.S.-led forces invaded Iraq. Within one month, Hussein was gone, and within two months, Bush stood on the deck of an aircraft carrier in front of a banner that declared, “Mission Accomplished.” Bush looked like a bold, decisive leader prepared to do whatever was necessary to protect the homeland. Voters rewarded him with a victory over the Democratic candidate, Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, in the 2004 presidential election. As Bush’s second term began, however, the situation in Iraq deteriorated. The original plan to depose Hussein had morphed into a plan to remake the country into the first Arab democracy. The idea, the thinking went, was that if Iraq could become democratic, other Arab countries would follow. America hastily organized a Western-style election, but Iraqis’ tribal hatred for each other soon erupted. The U.S. was caught in the crossfire. American casualties mounted monthly, and the American public soured both on the war and on the president they had recently reelected. Bush’s problems were compounded when, after an extensive search, no weapons of mass destruction were found, undermining the rationale for the invasion. Things went from bad to worse in August 2005. A massive hurricane, Katrina, devastated New Orleans, killing over a thousand people and destroying billions of dollars in property. ...access the full transcript here 👉 https://l.prageru.com/465LSfK