Does a simple classroom prayer violate the Constitution? That was the question before the Supreme Court in the 1962 case Engel v. Vitale. Joel Alicea, Associate Professor of Law at Catholic University, explains why this ruling dramatically reshaped the role of religion in public life—and why its impact is still felt today. Should optional prayer be reinstated in school? Take the poll 👉 https://l.prageru.com/45YNs2L 📲 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)

Is all speech protected under the First Amendment or is there a line that can’t be crossed? In 1969, the Supreme Court answered this question in the case of Brandenburg v. Ohio. Joseph Fornieri, Professor of Political Science at Rochester Institute of Technology, explains why free speech is the liberty from which all other liberties flow. 📲 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)

Why is Africa poor? Is it because of its colonial past or is it because of present-day policies? Senegalese-American entrepreneur and philanthropist Magatte Wade answers these questions, and offers a new path for a brighter, more prosperous future for the continent. 📲 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: Free Markets Can Free Africa Presented by Magatte Wade Is colonialism the source of poverty in Africa? The answer to that question is a resounding… No! If you think it is, put the idea out of your head. It’s a falsehood. So, what is the source of Africa’s problems, you might ask? That’s another easy one to answer. Most people in Africa don’t have enough money. And why is that? (Such easy questions!) Because they don’t have jobs. And why don’t they have jobs? Because they don’t have capitalism and free markets. They don’t have enough entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurs create jobs. Free markets allow them to do so. This should be obvious. Sadly, it’s not. Instead people — you may be one of them — are blinded by ignorance — ignorance about how the world works not just in Africa but everywhere and for all time. In the 1950’s, Singapore was a swamp with zero natural resources. No minerals. No precious metals. No oil. Today its income per capita is twice that of the United Kingdom. What created Singapore’s wealth? Capitalism! The free market! And the property rights and business friendly environment that go along with it. In the 1990s Dubai was a patch of bleached sand. Now, it’s one of the great financial centers in the world. Why? Capitalism. Free markets. Light regulation. The strongest economy in Africa right now is a country that you’ve never heard of: Mauritius. One of the fastest-growing economies is Rwanda. They have both embraced free market ideas and encouraged local entrepreneurs by making it easy for them to start businesses. News flash: only one economic system lifts people out of poverty. Capitalism. Here’s the topper. It works every time! And one economic system guarantees people will be poor. Socialism. Venezuela was once the wealthiest country in South America. Socialists took over and turned it into a basket case. Guess which continent has been overrun with socialism. Answer: the poorest — Africa. ...access the full transcript here 👉 https://l.prageru.com/4oPcHxl

Is Wikipedia still an impartial, crowd-sourced encyclopedia, or has it become a propaganda tool for a particular point of view? Investigative journalist Ashley Rindsberg charts the evolution of one of the world’s most popular websites, and comes to some surprising and disturbing conclusions. 📲 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: Can You Trust Wikipedia? Presented by Ashley Rindsberg Wikipedia is the most widely used source of information in human history. Think about it. When you Google anything—from historical events to current events —Wikipedia dominates the results. Google ranks Wikipedia articles in the first spot on 80% of topic searches, and uses Wikipedia articles to populate its "knowledge panels" that are displayed next to these searches. With this kind of reach, we would all want Wikipedia to be fair, objective, and accurate. And if you’re doing research on Roman emperors, or Isaac Newton’s laws of motion or Beethoven’s Fifth symphony, it usually is. But when it comes to contemporary political and social issues, Wikipedia has become something else entirely: a battlefield where ideology outranks accuracy. When you're researching immigration, climate change, or international conflicts, you'll find not neutral information, but carefully crafted narratives. On these issues Wikipedia is neither fair, nor objective, nor accurate. How did this happen? Through coordinated groups of editors who systematically control what information stays and what gets deleted. And anyone who challenges their preferred narrative gets shut down. On issue after issue only one point of view is permitted. Take Israel. Over the past few years, a group of 40 anti-Israel editors have engaged in a campaign to fundamentally delegitimize the Jewish state and whitewash the crimes of Hamas and other terrorist groups. These editors have scrubbed ties between Israel and the Jewish people from dozens of articles. They’ve contorted the definition of Zionism from a call for “restoration of the Jews to their homeland” to a call for “the colonization of Palestine by European Jews.” Almost all things related to Israel have been tainted. For example, two of the main editors from this group contributed over 90% of the content to an article they created originally called “Zionism, race and genetics,” which attempts to smear Zionism by comparing it to Nazi race science. The group isn’t just focused on tarring Israel. It also works round the clock to whitewash the crimes of Islamist groups. One editor removed mention of Hamas’ genocidal charter. Others have tried to deny atrocities of the October 7, 2023, massacre. Working in tandem, two editors went on “speed runs” to delete dozens of human rights abuses committed by the Islamic Republic of Iran. But this isn’t just about Israel and its enemies. Wikipedia articles related to American politics, racism, transgenderism and dozens of other subjects have seen a similar effect play out. Wikipedia wasn't always like this. ...access the full transcript here 👉 https://l.prageru.com/4ml0IGc

Millions of Latino voters shifted right in 2024. Is this a true political realignment, or a one-time phenomenon? The answer to this question may determine the future of American politics. Transcript: Why Latinos Voted for Trump Presented by Franklin Camargo For decades, Hispanics have been considered a reliable voting block for the Democratic Party. It didn’t matter who the candidate was. The assumption was: if you’re Hispanic, you vote blue. That didn’t happen in 2024. In fact, perhaps the biggest shock of the American presidential election was the movement of Hispanic voters from Left to Right. That shift was dramatic enough to allow Republicans to sweep the White House, the Senate, and the House of Representatives. This leads to some intriguing questions. Is the shift a one-off? Is there a historical precedent for this shift? What are the key causes and implications? Let’s try to answer the first question by looking at some numbers. In 2012, 71% of Hispanics voted for Barack Obama. That dropped to 66% for Hillary Clinton in 2016. In 2020, it dropped a bit further: Joe Biden won 65% of the Latino vote. And then in 2024, according to NBC exit polls, Kamala Harris got 52% of the Hispanic vote. Donald Trump secured 46% — the highest for any Republican presidential candidate in recent memory. To understand what’s happening with Hispanics today, let’s look at another pivotal realignment: the shift of white voters in the South from Democrat to Republican. For over a century, white Southerners were, for the most part, staunch Democrats. But in the late ‘60s, they started to trend Republican. The reason? “Racism.” That was the argument made by the Left. It was a convenient excuse but it wasn’t accurate. The fact is the Southern shift to the GOP was driven overwhelmingly by the Democratic Party’s embrace of left-wing values: big government, contempt for patriotism, and denigration of religious faith. Fast forward to today: How does the Left explain Latino defection to the Right? “Racism.” Here’s how they work it out: those Latinos who voted Republican have become "tools of white supremacy.” Throw in misogyny, xenophobia, homophobia, and transphobia, and it all makes sense — to the left. Aside from being patronizing, this is as inaccurate as it was in explaining the white Southern shift fifty years ago. Just like those Southern whites, today’s Latinos are changing their political affiliation because the Democratic Party no longer represents their values. A powerful example is Starr County, Texas—a border county that is 97% Hispanic. For a century, it was deep blue. Then, in 2024, it flipped. Democrats assumed that Hispanics near the border would support their immigration policies. But Latinos in Starr County felt the impact of those policies: Streets taken over by foreign gangs. Schools flooded with migrant children. Hospital emergency rooms overwhelmed. According to Pew Research, 75% of Latinos see the border crisis as a major problem. Let’s look at another values issue: faith and traditional family values. According to a 2020 study, over three-quarters of Hispanic Americans strongly identify as Christian. Faith and traditional family values shape their worldview. That sounds a lot more in line with the Republican than the Democratic Party. Most Latino voters don’t want their kids taught to question their “gender” any more than most white voters do. ...access the full transcript here 👉 https://l.prageru.com/4mBb5VQ 📲 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)

The Roman Empire began as a model of Republican Government, but eventually descended into an autocracy. Is America headed for the same fate? Niall Ferguson, Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, examines this question. 📲 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)

Bill Clinton may have been the most fortunate president in US History. He took office at a time of unparalleled peace and prosperity, when America stood alone as the world’s superpower. What did Clinton do with this unprecedented opportunity? Historian and political commentator Bill Whittle tells the story of a President who accomplished much, but could have accomplished so much more. 📲 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: Bill Clinton: The Fall from Grace Presented by Bill Whittle When Bill Clinton took office on January 20, 1993, at age forty-six, he was the first of his generation—the baby boomers born after World War II—to reach the White House. The United States had recently won its four-decade-long Cold War with the Soviet Union, making it the dominant nation in the world. Everything seemed possible. “There is nothing wrong with America,” Clinton told the inauguration crowd, “that cannot be cured by what is right with America.” But nothing went right in Clinton’s first few months on the job. Intending to prove himself as a no-nonsense commander-in-chief, in the summer of 1993 Clinton ordered U.S. troops to capture a troublesome warlord, Mohamed Farrah Aidid, in Mogadishu, Somalia. Despite the American soldiers’ heroic efforts, it was a high-profile disaster. Eighteen Americans had died in the infamous ‘Black Hawk Down’ incident, and as a result, Clinton got cold feet. He immediately ordered the remaining troops out of the country. The new president looked like a hopeless amateur. That perception only intensified when his proposal to take over the American healthcare industry, a full one-seventh of the economy, blew up in his face. Aiming to cement his place in history next to Democratic Presidential icons Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and Lyndon Johnson—all of whom massively expanded the reach of government in Americans’ lives—Clinton sought to create a European-style universal healthcare system. He compounded his mistakes by putting his wife Hillary in charge of the project. Ultimately, the sheer size of the proposal (it was over 1,300 pages long and would cost hundreds of billions of dollars), and Hillary’s lack of transparency (she held all her policy meetings in secret) provoked fierce opposition, sinking the bill. It also led to massive Democratic losses in the 1994 midterms. The Democrats lost eight Senate seats and a staggering fifty-two House seats, giving Republicans control of both chambers for the first time in forty-two years. The center of gravity in Washington suddenly shifted to the Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich, the mastermind of the GOP tidal wave. When Clinton tried to assert his authority, he only sounded more desperate, insisting, “I am relevant… A president… has relevance.” No one was listening. It very much seemed like Bill Clinton would be a one-term president. But then, in April 1995, domestic terrorists blew up the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, killing 168 people, including nineteen children. The nation went into shock and Clinton went into action. Suddenly he was everywhere, comforting both the residents of Oklahoma City and the American people. He was also steadfast in his conviction to capture and punish the perpetrators. It was perhaps Bill Clinton’s Finest Hour. America had a president again. And the president had a renewed sense of confidence. He also had a new strategy: he would co-opt his opponents’ best ideas. Guided by his savvy pollster Dick Morris, he worked with Republicans in 1996 to reform welfare programs, requiring beneficiaries to find work. He deregulated the telecommunications and financial industries, opening up the economy. He signed the Communications Decency Act, which allowed free speech to flourish in the world’s newest medium, the Internet. In short, he returned to his centrist, pragmatic roots. Before long, it was the Republicans grasping for relevance. ..access the full transcript here 👉 https://l.prageru.com/3U56WgO

At the start of 1992 nobody imagined Bill Clinton, an obscure Southern Governor, would become President of the United States. But by the end of the year, it seemed inevitable. How did this most skillful of politicians pull it off?  Historian and political commentator Bill Whittle describes Clinton’s improbable triumph. 📲 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)

Success comes with risk. Those who take it often reap the biggest rewards. But what happens when government removes risk—freely spending taxpayer money and facing no consequences for failure? Carol Roth, author of You Will Own Nothing, reveals how this "risk-free" approach has left America drowning in debt without much to show for it. 📲 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: There's No Reward Without Risk Presented by Carol Roth A cashier at local burger joint may make $20 an hour. But the owner of the burger shop chain may make hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars. Is that fair? Absolutely. Why? Because of the concepts of risk and reward. Risk and reward are fundamental to navigating the world — from economics, business and government to the choices we make in our own lives. Those choices all depend on how we assess risk and reward. We understand rewards, but what is risk? Simply put, it is the likelihood of something turning out worse than expected, plus the chance of that “something worse” actually happening. When you think of taking a risk, you may think of an activity like jumping out of an airplane. You must evaluate the amount and scope of risk involved — maybe your parachute doesn’t open — in fact, 1 out of 400,000 making a jump are killed — against the potential benefits: the rush of flying through the open air, the bragging rights afterward, and so on. Risk versus reward. Maybe you want to invest in the stock of a company that has developed an exciting new technology. You risk your hard-earned money hoping the stock doubles or triples. But no one knows whether this new technology will catch on. You could easily lose your entire investment. Risk versus reward. Say you want to start your own business. You’re willing to put your time and money into this venture to make it work. You may even be willing to mortgage your house to finance start-up costs. That’s taking on a lot of risk—but you love the idea of being your own boss. And if the business succeeds like you hope, you might make a lot of money. Risk versus reward. Reaping rewards sounds great. So, why doesn’t everyone take the risks to get them? Sometimes the risks don’t justify the payoff. Other times, people are afraid of taking too many risks or don’t know how to evaluate the risks. It makes them uneasy. That’s not a criticism, it’s just reality. Most people, for example, prefer the safety of getting a steady paycheck to the anxiety of making payroll. Some people are risk-takers. Many people aren’t, at least in certain areas of their lives. Everyone is built differently. But keep this in mind: if you work for a hamburger shop and you wonder why you aren’t getting paid more, remember that the business owner is taking the risk. You get a paycheck no matter if one customer or one thousand customers come through the door. But the business owner risks losing everything, and for that risk, he gets the opportunity of reaping any rewards. Now, what if we take away the cost of failure? What if the payoff is guaranteed? What if those who take on the "risk" have nothing personally at stake and other people have to bear the costs of their risk taking? When that happens — and it does — things get out of whack. Welcome to that funhouse mirror known as big government. Here, the risk-reward formula totally breaks down. When members of Congress, the President or other politicians take on debt, engage in wars, or make other legislation, the checks and balances of risk and reward are not there. The government can spend your tax dollars wastefully, but what is the cost to them? There is none. And there is no real accountability, either. If the program fails, the politician suffers no consequence. If the program doubles or triples in cost, it’s not coming out of their pockets. This is true up and down all of government. The only “accountability” is that they might get voted out of office the next time—not much of a downside risk, given the level of risk they can take on our behalf. And, these politicians often get lucrative lobbying, board member, speaking and other positions after office. They get the rewards, and you and I are the ones that bear the costs. So, the next time a hamburger shop worker or other employee complains that the entrepreneur is making too much money, you can remind them about risk versus reward. If the shop fails, sure the employee might have to find a new shop to work at, but the owner loses all their time and money spent trying to make it successful. ...access the full transcript here 👉 https://l.prageru.com/45eMro4