He was French by birth—but American by conviction. Wounded in battle, tireless in diplomacy, and fiercely loyal to George Washington, Lafayette became one of the Revolution’s most essential actors. Eric Metaxas, author of "Revolution," tells the story of the French hero who helped America win its independence. 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: Lafayette: The French Hero of the American Revolution Presented by Eric Metaxas

He was 21 years old, a schoolteacher turned soldier. Captured by the British, he faced the hangman’s noose with one legendary line: “I only regret that I have but one life to give for my country.” Eric Metaxas, author of "Revolution," tells the story of Nathan Hale and the spirit of sacrifice that helped win America’s independence. 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: Nathan Hale: One Life to Give Presented by Eric Metaxas “I only regret that I have but one life to give for my country.” This is one of the signature lines of the American Revolution — the quintessential statement of American patriotism. It was spoken by Nathan Hale just before a British hangman executed him on September 22, 1776. Hale was twenty-one years old. Who was this remarkable young man? And why was he willing to sacrifice his promising young life for the cause of liberty? Nathan Hale was born June 6, 1755 in Coventry, Connecticut to a family with a hundred-year history in New England. His great-grandfather John Hale had been a prominent figure in the Salem Witch Trials. His father Richard Hale subscribed to the same fire-and-brimstone doctrines and instilled in his children a deep, abiding reverence for God. Studious, pious, but enormously charming, Nathan convinced everyone that he was destined for greatness. And the first stop on that road, at age 14, was a Yale education. There, Nathan thrived. He was curious about everything and attempted to master everything, from Greek and Latin to science and philosophy. Tall, broad-shouldered, with sharp blue eyes, he was quick to smile. In the fashion of the age, he tied his thick blondish-brown hair in a ponytail. Jared Sparks, future Harvard president and Hale’s first biographer, said, “No young man of his years put forth a fairer promise of future usefulness and celebrity…” Upon graduating, Hale found a job as a schoolmaster in New London, Connecticut. He was an instant success: firm, demanding, charismatic — a born teacher and leader. According to one of his students, "Everyone who knew Hale was attached to him—that's the fact.” It was in New London that he was drawn into the patriot cause. In April of 1775, talk of revolution turned into bloody conflict when, in the neighboring Massachusetts towns of Lexington and Concord, American militiamen rebuffed the professional British army. The war was on. Hale answered the call for volunteers. "A sense of duty urged me to sacrifice everything for my country,” he wrote his father. God, he believed, had called him to military service. For Hale, America’s cause was God’s cause. Recognizing Hale’s obvious leadership qualities, his commanding officer made him a lieutenant in the Connecticut regiment. The title was flattering, but he had no idea what it meant to be a soldier. So he read manuals, studied tactics, pored over military histories to make up for his lack of military experience. His first taste of real action came on his own initiative. In May 1776, he snuck aboard a British supply sloop in the middle of the night and steered it to the American side of the East River while the British crew slept below. The escapade made him a hero in the camp. The badly-needed captured supplies, not to mention the captured sailors, made the victory all the sweeter. His initiative and daring brought Hale to the attention of Thomas Knowlton. A veteran of the French and Indian War, Knowlton had been personally selected by General Washington to lead an elite “special forces” unit. Whatever needed to be done, no matter how difficult, Knowlton’s Rangers would do it: espionage, covert reconnaissance, raids behind enemy lines. Knowlton asked Hale if he wanted to join. The former schoolmaster didn’t hesitate. ...access the full transcript here 👉 https://l.prageru.com/4l00B2R

It was the worst financial disaster since the Great Depression. But what really caused the 2008 crash? Deregulation? Greedy banks? Or something else entirely? PragerU’s Franklin Camargo explains how government mandates and bad incentives created one of the most destructive bubbles in American history. 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: Who Caused the 2008 Great Recession? Presented by Franklin Camargo From 2007 to 2009, America suffered a severe economic downturn known as the Great Recession, also known as the subprime mortgage crisis. The economy, as measured by GDP, or gross domestic product, shrank by over 4%. Unemployment doubled, peaking at 10%. The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 50%. Millions lost their homes. How did this happen? Here’s the short version: in the spring of 2006, housing prices, which had been rising for years, began to decline and then freefall—30% nationwide, 60% in some markets like Las Vegas and Phoenix. Why did this lead to a recession? The usual explanation goes something like this: free-market ideologues in Republican administrations deregulated the banks. Free from constraints, these institutions enticed millions of Americans to take out home loans that were beyond their means. It was, according to Forbes Advisor, “a classic tale of greed and deregulation…” There’s one more crucial component here. These “subprime loans” were variable, that is, they rose or fell based on interest rates. When interest rates were low, monthly payments were affordable. If interest rates increased, so would monthly payments. But few thought that would actually happen. This raises an obvious question: How did banks, which are inherently risk-averse, become so reckless with their money? To answer that, we need to look at federal policy, specifically a piece of legislation called the Community Reinvestment Act, or CRA. Signed in 1977 by President Jimmy Carter and expanded in 1995 by President Bill Clinton, both Democrats, the CRA had an idealistic goal: make homeownership easier for low-income Americans. But the government wasn’t making an encouraging suggestion. It was making a demand—one with quotas attached. As Phil Gramm and Donald Boudreaux explain in their book, The Triumph of Economic Freedom, there was a carrot and a stick. If the banks didn’t make the loans—actually meet a quota—the government wouldn’t approve the banks’ expansion plans: mergers with other banks, new branches or even how many ATMs they could open. Nice bank you have got there. It would be a shame if something happened to it. That was the stick, now here’s the carrot. The loans weren’t risky because the government promised to take away the downside. This is a concept known as moral hazard: privatizing profits and socializing losses—taking risks because someone else (the taxpayer) bears the cost of failure. Here’s how it worked: the conventional practice was for banks to sell their mortgage portfolios—large bundles of home loans—to two financial institutions, the Federal National Mortgage Association and Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, commonly known as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. These institutions were ostensibly independent, but in reality, they were controlled by the federal government—which pressured banks to make subprime loans they wouldn’t traditionally make—and forced Fannie and Freddie to buy those loans from the banks, which they wouldn’t traditionally buy. So to recap: the banks issued risky loans, collected fees for writing them, and sold them—and the risk—to Fannie and Freddie. And yes, some unscrupulous banks took advantage of this opportunity and did indeed entice people to “buy more house” than they could afford, and some other financial institutions exploited the game of selling and reselling mortgage portfolios. That is the poison fruit of moral hazard. ...access the full transcript here 👉 https://l.prageru.com/4c6Bysu #2008crash #2008greatrecession #greatrecession

What would the world be like if everyone followed the Bible’s teaching on sex? Should anybody care? Sean McDowell, Associate Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology, has answers to both questions. 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)

To the British, the American Revolution wasn’t a fight for liberty—it was an act of ingratitude. After defending the colonies in the costly French and Indian War, Parliament expected the Americans to pay their fair share. Instead, they got boycotts, protests, and rebellion. Renowned historian Andrew Roberts, author of The Last King of America, explains how a series of British missteps turned resistance into revolution. 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)

After Donald Trump won the 2016 election, the Trump-Russia collusion hoax should have died—just another dirty campaign trick that didn’t work. Instead, it escalated. Lee Smith explains how Russiagate turned from campaign smear to a nearly successful coup to overthrow the President of the United States. 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: Russiagate: The Real Scandal, Part 2 Presented by Lee Smith After Donald Trump won the 2016 election, “Russiagate,” or the Trump-Russia Collusion Hoax, should have disappeared into the dustbin of history, just another “dirty” campaign trick that failed. That’s what should have happened, but it didn’t. Far from being dead, the baseless conspiracy theory that Trump was a Russian agent, was revving up. If it failed to derail Donald Trump’s candidacy, it could still derail his presidency. So believed outgoing President Barack Obama, CIA director John Brennan, and FBI director James Comey, among others. There was no time to waste. This was November and Trump would take office at the end of January. The plotters' first move was to make a flashy display of expelling Russian diplomats and shutting down Russian “intelligence gathering facilities” in Maryland and New York. This conveyed the impression that the Obama Administration had proof, as The New York Times put it, that the Russians had “enabled the publication of the emails it harvested [from the Clinton campaign] to benefit…Trump’s campaign.” The Administration had no such proof. It was all for show. Around the same time, Obama ordered CIA chief John Brennan to produce an intelligence community assessment, or ICA, about Russia’s role in the election. It had to be done before the end of his term— that is, before Trump’s inauguration. But there was a problem. The intelligence officers assigned to the task couldn’t find any evidence of significant Russian interference. Brennan rejected their report and ordered them to write a new one. The revised version conveniently presented unconfirmed rumor as fact. This revised ICA was released to the news media. They swallowed it whole — hook, line, and sinker. The problem wasn’t just biased reporting. And it wasn’t just that the media had missed the real story — how US intelligence agencies and the Obama White House were undermining the new administration. No, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, The New York Times and The Washington Post were essential players in the anti-Trump plot. Day after day, they published “leaked” intelligence slanted to advance the Russiagate narrative and destabilize the nascent Trump Administration. To cite just one example, The Post targeted Trump’s incoming national security adviser Michael Flynn. In a January 2017 article, the paper asserted that Flynn had spoken with the Russian ambassador. The story was sourced to a classified intelligence intercept — which someone had illegally leaked to the media. This should have been the big story, not Flynn’s call. The presidential transition team is supposed to speak with foreign officials. But because Obama and his aides had created a frenzy around anything related to Russia, the media turned the Flynn story into a national crisis and the retired three-star general was forced from the White House. The drumbeat of Russia stories continued nonstop, all built around two plotlines — that Russia got Trump elected, and that Trump was beholden to Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin. Democrats demanded a special counsel investigation into “Russian interference” in the election. Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who like Michael Flynn had been accused of “improper” communications with a Russian diplomat, should have shut down any talk of such an investigation. Instead, he yielded to pressure. On May 17, 2017, Robert Mueller, the former director of the FBI, was appointed special counsel. Mueller hired a staff of nearly sixty people, including FBI agents, forensic accountants and other personnel. This was in addition to fifteen lawyers. The investigation ran for two years and cost over thirty million dollars. ..access the full transcript here 👉 https://l.prageru.com/46cnw4H

It’s the biggest political scandal in US history. Millions were led to believe that a presidential candidate was a secret Russian agent. The media ran with it. Intelligence officials fueled it. But behind the headlines was something even more alarming. Lee Smith, author of The Plot Against the President, tells the story. 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: Russiagate: The Real Scandal, Part 1 Presented by Lee Smith It’s the biggest political scandal in US history. There’s no close second. Looking back, it all seems almost unbelievable — absurd. But at the time, millions were convinced that the 2016 Republican candidate for president, Donald Trump, was secretly working for Russia. This was the Trump-Russia Collusion Hoax or “Russiagate,” a label borrowed from the 1970s Watergate scandal. The instigators of this deception were not foreign adversaries. They were domestic actors—a presidential campaign, senior intelligence officials, and, perhaps most importantly, powerful media outlets. They all shared the same goal: defeat Donald Trump and elect Hillary Clinton, the Democratic Party candidate. Ironically, what became Russiagate began as an “insurance policy” to protect Clinton. While serving as secretary of state, Clinton used a private, unsecured email server for official business — a clear violation of federal record-keeping rules and a serious national security risk. In 2015, the FBI opened an investigation. Clinton’s advisors knew this could become an election-threatening scandal. If it blew up, she needed a way to redirect attention — away from her own misconduct and toward her opponent. Among those who helped develop this strategy were senior members of President Barack Obama’s national security circle, including CIA Director John Brennan. The strategy came to be known as the “Clinton Plan.” The idea was straightforward: if Clinton’s emails became a liability, media attention would be redirected to the supposed culprit who stole and leaked the emails: Russia. And why would Russia steal them and make them public? To help Donald Trump win. Because, the story went, they supposedly had compromising material with which to blackmail him. To construct this narrative, the Clinton team hired a former British intelligence officer named Christopher Steele. Even a cursory glimpse into Steele’s past would have revealed that he was not to be trusted. A “spy for hire” of dubious credibility, he had worked both for the FBI and London-based Russian oligarchs—and he made no secret of his hatred for Donald Trump. Steele produced a collection of sensational memos — the now infamous Steele Dossier. It contained lurid and unverified claims. Still, the idea that one of the world’s most famous businessmen — now the Republican nominee for president — was secretly a Russian intelligence asset was irresistible to Trump’s political opponents. That — sadly — included most of the media. Never mind that Trump’s celebrity-studded career in television, real estate and casinos meant he was under constant scrutiny. Steele’s material gave Clinton’s team exactly what they wanted: a salacious narrative that could dominate the headlines. In early July 2016, Clinton’s worst fears materialized. At a highly publicized press conference, FBI Director James Comey announced the findings of the FBI’s investigation: emails containing classified information were found on her unsecured server, a national security violation. Comey declined to recommend prosecution but described Clinton’s conduct as “extremely careless.” It was a public relations disaster. But the Clinton team was ready. Articles based on Steele’s dossier began to seep into media outlets like The Atlantic, The New Yorker, and Slate, alleging Trump had secret ties to Russia. ...access the full transcript here 👉 https://l.prageru.com/45rtK0i

Before Affirmative Action, black Americans were closing education gaps, increasing incomes, and joining the middle class at record speed. But since the introduction of Affirmative Action, that progress has significantly slowed. How can we account for this? Jason Riley, senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, explains Affirmative Action’s troubling legacy. 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: Did Affirmative Action Work? Presented by Jason Riley Before Harvard Law professor Derrick Bell was for Affirmative Action, he was against it. This is noteworthy because Bell is best known for his contributions to critical race theory—which claims that racism is embedded in American institutions and that the historical mistreatment of black people largely explains current disparities. In a 1970 law-review article, Bell objected to using different criteria to assess student performance depending on race. In the past, he noted, the small percentages of blacks admitted to selective law schools “not only met the usual academic criteria, but were often characterized by a strong inner drive to equal and, if at all possible, excel their white classmates.” Admitting blacks who did not meet accepted standards was, in Bell’s words, “a form of benevolent paternalism.” He warned that racial preferences risked tainting the accomplishments of those who succeeded—in the eyes of whites and blacks alike. “Whatever arguments are used to justify such a policy,” he wrote, “there is little denying that it robs those black students who have done well of receiving real credit and the boost in confidence that their accomplishments merit.” Although Bell later changed his mind, he offered a preview of a half-century of arguments that would be made against racial preferences. That might give pause to those who are inclined to dismiss criticism of affirmative action as racist. Bell’s concerns about the psychological toll of affirmative action turned out to be prescient. More than five decades of racial preferences have created the impression that black advancement is impossible without them. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in her dissent of the 2023 Supreme Court ruling against affirmative action, Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, that the Court’s ruling “rolls back decades of precedent and momentous progress.” Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said the majority had “detached itself from this country’s actual past and present experiences.” This doom-saying assumes racial favoritism is a prerequisite for black accomplishment. Because it has been asserted for decades that affirmative action and government programs produced today’s black middle class, few bother to question the claim. But when we do, a very different narrative emerges. During the first two-thirds of the 20th century—long before affirmative action and an expanded welfare state—black Americans experienced remarkable progress. Education gaps narrowed, incomes rose, poverty declined. This history is often ignored because activists and politicians prefer a narrative of suffering. Yet it should be a source of pride for blacks—and inspiration for other minorities. In 1940, 25- to 29-year-old whites had 3.6 more years of schooling on average than blacks. By 1960 both groups had advanced, but blacks outpaced whites and the gap had narrowed by more than half, to 1.7 years. Between 1940 and 1960, the percentage of blacks with a high school diploma more than tripled, again growing faster than whites. But as colleges began compromising admissions standards in the late 1960s, these trends slowed. According to Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam and co-author Shaylyn Garrett, the “fastest and most dramatic progress toward parity [in education] between blacks and whites finishing high school was achieved before 1970.” The same story can be told about income. More education meant better jobs and higher pay. And just as educational gains among blacks were speedier before affirmative action, so too were wage gains. Yet affirmative action policies were given far more credit than they deserved, mainly because proponents started the story in the middle. In 1939, the annual median income was $350 for black males and $1,000 for white males. By 1960, those figures had reached $3,000 and $5,000, respectively—an increase of 570% for blacks vs. 360% for whites. All of this occurred before affirmative action and the civil rights legislation of the mid-1960s. ...access the full transcript here 👉 https://l.prageru.com/4bBTquX