Preview Mode Links will not work in preview mode

All free!! All educational. All entertaining. All professionally recorded. No empty rhetoric here. Just entertaining learning. Choose from many different topics from the best talent around the world. Earn your American Conservative Masters Degree just by listening. No writing, no assignments. Just listen at the feet of some of the worlds greatest Conservative thinkers. Visit us at

Mar 20, 2019

Prager University Part 33.

What Made George Washington Great?

Is Harvard Racist?

Why You Can't Argue with a Leftist.

Why Trump Won.

What It Takes to Become a Millionaire.

What Is the Cost of Medicare for All?

WWI: The War That Changed Everything. Ronald Reagan Discusses Gun Control Laws.

How the Reformation Shaped Your World.

Why Obamacare Doesn't Work As Promised.


For Prager University Parts 1-32 on ACU visit-

Prager University Parts 1-32 on ACU 


What Made George Washington Great?

To watch this video visit-


There would have never been a United States of America without George Washington. John Rhodehamel, author of "George Washington: The Wonder of the Age," details how Washington successfully guided the budding nation through war and nurtured her in peace. This video was made in partnership with the American Battlefield Trust. Learn more about the George Washington and America's Battlefields at

Script: It’s hard to imagine there would have been a United States of America without George Washington. He was there at the birth of the nation. He successfully guided it through war and nurtured it in peace. How did he do it? Not by being a great general, a potent political theorist, or even a clever politician. He was none of those things. And yet, he was admired by generals, political theorists and politicians. Why? Because he was a man great men trusted. Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison and so many others looked up to him—literally. He was one of the tallest men of his era at six-foot-three. Add courage, integrity, and wisdom, and you have a truly impressive figure. Let’s start with his courage. That was never in doubt. If anything, he had too much of it. Bold to the point of rashness as a young man, he fought for the British against the French over control of the Ohio Valley, then the Western-most point of the American wilderness. Throughout that conflict, known as the French and Indian War, and the American Revolution, Washington was always in the thick of the action. His aides often struggled to keep him from surging too far ahead of his own troops. In one battle, his coat was pierced four times by musket fire. Horses were shot out from under him. Amazingly, some would say miraculously, he was never wounded—not so much as a flesh wound. By the time the revolution broke out in April of 1775, Washington was firmly committed to the cause of American independence. He arrived in Philadelphia in May of that year to offer his services to the Continental Congress. He was quickly made commander of the new rebel army. There was only one problem: there was no army to speak of. There was just a rag-tag collection of state militias. How was Washington going to defeat the greatest military force in the world with that? It was a problem the general struggled with for eight and a half years. That he managed to hold the army together, organize it into a disciplined fighting force and guide it to victory was testament to his fortitude, his patience, and his personal bravery. Of his integrity, one need only to look at what he did when the war ended: exactly what he promised to do when the war began. He resigned his military command and went home to Mt. Vernon. By stepping down, Washington raised himself up as the embodiment of republican heroism. It is said that King George III asked the London-based American painter Benjamin West what Washington was likely to do when peace came. West replied that Washington would probably return to his farm. The king was astounded. “If he does that,” His Majesty declared, “he will be the greatest man in the world!” For the complete script, visit



Is Harvard Racist?

To watch this video visit-


Published on Feb 25, 2019

Harvard University’s admissions policy is proof that one can remember negative history, write about it in great and vivid detail, and still be doomed to repeat it. In the name of “affirmative action” and “diversity,” Harvard is doing to Asian-American applicants exactly what it once did to Jewish applicants: discriminate. Lee Cheng explains.

Script: Can you imagine, in this day and age, an educational institution discriminating against a racial minority? Can you imagine what the outcry would be? “You mean, you’re preventing these qualified students from attending your college because of the color of their skin?!” Well, you don’t have to imagine it. It’s happening. And at arguably the most prestigious college in America—my alma mater, Harvard. The ethnic minority isn’t blacks or Jews, as it was in years past. The target this time is Asian Americans. And it’s just as wrong. After millions of dollars in legal fees, millions of records examined, and hundreds of hours of depositions and testimony, Harvard’s once purposely opaque admissions policies have been laid bare. It’s not a pretty picture. Here’s what we now know: Harvard Admissions rates student applicants in three main ways: 1) Academic performance; 2) Extra-curricular achievements; 3) “Personal qualities.” That’s fine, as far as it goes, if the criteria were applied fairly. But they’re not. Asian American applicants consistently score higher in the first two criteria—academics and extra-curricular activities, which can be objectively assessed—than white students, Latinos and African Americans. So how does Harvard justify its Asian American quota? With the help of category three—“personal qualities,” which include vague and largely subjective factors like “likability,” “maturity,” “integrity,” and “effervescence.” According to Harvard’s own internal reports, Asian American applicants are routinely and systematically marked much lower on this personality scale by Harvard admissions officers who almost never meet or interview applicants. But here’s the kicker: the personality ratings given to Asian students by admissions officers are vastly different than the personality ratings Harvard gets from its own alumni interviewers, who actually meet the applicants in person. Alumni interviewers score Asian applicants as high as whites. In other words, Harvard artificially and fraudulently downgrades Asians on “personality” to get the results it wants. And what Harvard wants is to suppress the number of Asian Americans admitted. Based on the data that Harvard was forced to turn over, economist Peter Arcidiacono of Duke University concluded that with the same application profile in terms of test scores, extracurricular activities and personality factors, an Asian American male applicant would only have a 25% chance of admission—versus 32% if white, 77% if Hispanic, and 95% if black. What’s the real-life result of all this? In 2013, Asian Americans made up 19% of the incoming freshmen class. According to Harvard’s own Office of Institutional Research, if the personality factors had not been rigged, that percentage would have been 43%. For the complete script, visit



Why You Can't Argue with a Leftist.


When two people share the same goals, they can disagree – even strongly disagree – and still have a productive discussion about how to reach those shared objectives. As comedian and author Owen Benjamin explains, the problem with America today is we no longer share the same goals, and that’s tearing us apart. Donate today to PragerU! To view the script, sources, quiz, and study guides, visit VISIT PragerU! Get PragerU bonus content for free! 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. FOLLOW us! Facebook: Twitter: Instagram: PragerU is on Snapchat! JOIN PragerFORCE! For Students: JOIN our Educators Network! Script: Do you and I share same goals? If we do, we can disagree—even strongly disagree, and still have a productive discussion. We might even reach a compromise. But if we don’t share the same goals? Then what? Then, rhetorically speaking, we’re at war. And only one side can win. Let me explain. My parents and brother lean more to the liberal side of the political spectrum than I do. We argue. We slightly nudge each other. We change opinions a little bit. And then we go back to Scrabble. They were very upset when President Trump withdrew from the Paris climate accords. I was happy. We argued about it, but it was all good because we share the same goals. We all want clean air and water for our children. We all want to develop clean energy; we want America’s economy to prosper; we want to be less reliant on fossil fuels. I thought the accords were a bad deal for America. The best way to lower carbon emissions, in my opinion, is to let the free market and American ingenuity loose on the problem. They, in contrast, think the government needs to step in, fund the research, and keep the corporations in line. Doesn't matter, because we have the same goal: a healthy planet. We also disagree on gun control. My brother is a little more with me, but my dad wants a lot more regulation because he wants fewer school shootings. So do I. So does my brother. But I believe if a potential killer knew he’d encounter teachers and administrators well-trained in the use of weapons, we’d have less shootings. Different solutions. Shared goal. I’ve always thought that this is how America is supposed to work. Liberals and conservatives respectfully arguing over the best solution to a shared goal. But now there’s a third party in the game: the left. And they’re changing the rules. When I was growing up, the left was on the fringe. But now they’ve moved into the mainstream. They’ve pretty much taken over our educational system. They’re in the media. In corporate HR departments. And, more and more, sad to say, in the Democratic Party. The left doesn’t share the same goals that liberals and conservatives do. They have a whole different set of goals. Let me give you some examples. Raising kids without a gender identity or encouraging them to question their sexual identity. This, to me, is a form of child abuse. I don’t care who’s doing it—parents, teachers, doctors. Their goal is not my goal. Here’s another one: Demonizing white people and males for the world's problems is not part of my value system. There is no shared goal in that. I believe in merit and character over race. But now it's cool to say that white males have done all the bad things in the world. I have two little boys. I get angry just thinking about people telling them they're responsible for racism and sexism—beautiful little children who just dance in the kitchen and smile. So that's not a shared goal. Published on Feb 4, 2019.

For the complete script, visit


Why Trump Won


Published on Jan 28, 2019

Were you shocked at the results of the 2016 American presidential election? Most people were, but Stephen Harper was not one of them. Here, the former Prime Minister of Canada explains the trends that foreshadowed Trump’s victory and left many political elites looking wildly out of touch.

Script: I was elected to the Parliament of Canada seven times—three times as Prime Minister. I did not expect Donald Trump to be elected President of the United States. But unlike most observers, I did think it was at least possible. Why? Because I sensed, as Mr. Trump surely did, that the political landscape had shifted. The underlying issue is this: Over the last few decades, thanks to globalization, a billion people—mostly in the emerging markets of Asia—have lifted themselves out of poverty. This, of course, is a good thing. Yet, in many Western countries, the incomes of working people have stagnated or even declined over the same period. In short, many Americans voted for Donald Trump because the global economy has not been working for them. We can pretend that this is a false perception. We can keep trying to convince people that they misunderstand their own lives. Or we can try to understand what they are saying and offer some solutions. I prefer the latter approach. Let me begin with this: In our contemporary world, there are, as British journalist David Goodhart describes it, those who can live “Anywhere,” and those who live “Somewhere.” Imagine you work for an international bank, computer company, or consulting firm. You can wake up in New York, London, or Singapore and feel at home. Your work is not threatened by import competition or technological dislocation. You vocally support all international trade agreements and high levels of immigration. You are one of those who can live Anywhere. There are a lot of those people. But there are a lot more completely unlike them. Let’s say you’re a factory worker, a small-businessperson, or in retail sales. Your work has been disrupted by outsourcing, cheap imports and technological change. Your children attend the local schools and your aging parents live nearby. Your social life is connected to a local church, sports team, or community group. If things go badly at your company, or if policy choices by politicians turn out to be wrong, you can’t just shift your life to somewhere else. Like it or not, you depend on the economic policies of your national or state government. When it doesn’t come through for you, you’re not happy. And when it ignores you entirely, you get angry. It’s easy for Anywheres to dismiss these concerns. But the Anywheres’ faith in global solutions and multi-national political bodies is founded more on fantasy than fact. The fact is, the critical functions of laws and regulations and monetary and fiscal stability, among other things, are provided by nations, not global institutions. The nation, with all its flaws, is a concrete reality. The “global community” is little more than a concept. Yet it is the Anywheres, with their faith in globalization—not the Somewheres—who have dominated the politics of almost every advanced country. That is, until now. This sea-change is not limited to the United States. The same dynamics—“Anywhere” elites versus “Somewhere” populists—is playing out all across the Western world. These populists, as I’ve tried to show, are not the ignorant and misguided “deplorables” depicted in mainstream media. They are our family, friends, and neighbors. The populists represent, by definition, the interests of ordinary people. And, in a democratic system, the people are supposed to be our customers. For the complete script, visit


What It Takes to Become a Millionaire


What’s the difference between America’s millionaires and the rest of us? Chris Hogan, author of Everyday Millionaires, and his research team interviewed over 10,000 millionaires to find out, and what they discovered exploded a number of common myths. Check out Chris Hogan​'s book "Everyday Millionaires: How Ordinary People Built Extraordinary Wealth―and How You Can Too" 👉

Script: “He’s a millionaire.” Even today that phrase has a magical ring to it. And what image do you see? Probably a guy in a $1000 suit pulling up in his luxury car to his ten-bedroom mansion. He doesn’t have a care in the world. Why should he? He’s got all the money in the world. Who knows how he got it. Maybe his parents left it to him or he got lucky in the stock market or acquired it in some dishonest way. What does it matter? It’s out of your reach, right? I don’t blame you if you think this way. I thought that way once myself. It’s how Hollywood and the popular media like to portray the wealthy… “the one-percent.” But it couldn’t be further from the truth. How can I say that? Because my research team and I surveyed and interviewed over 10,000 millionaires. We learned a lot about them. What we found out surprised me, and, I suspect, will surprise you, too. But before I explode some millionaire myths, let me first define what I mean by a “millionaire.” It means someone who has $1 million dollars in net assets; that is, the total of their assets, bank accounts and investments minus any debts totals $1 million or more. According to a recent report, there are almost 11 million millionaires in the United States today – more than ever. But here’s the kicker: that same report shows the number of people living paycheck to paycheck is on the rise, with one in three unable to cover a $2000 emergency with cash. The key difference between the so-called haves and have nots? Well that’s what really blew us away. Before I give you that answer, I need to deal with some myths about the millionaires we talked to. Myth #1 – Wealthy people inherited all their money. The truth is, 79% of millionaires received zero inheritance. That’s right, zip from mom and dad. They earned it on their own. Myth #2 – Wealthy people are lucky. This is one that I believed for a long time. But in reality, 76% of millionaires say that nothing extraordinary happened to enhance their wealth. No lottery wins. No stock market killing. Discipline and hard work were the key factors. As for luck, the luckiest thing in most of their lives was being born in, or becoming a citizen of, the United States. Myth #3 – Wealthy people have prestigious private-school educations. Wrong again. 62% of millionaires went to public state schools. You don’t have to go to an Ivy League School to do well. Myth #4 – Wealthy People Have High Paying Jobs. Not true at all! One-third of millionaires never had a six-figure household income in a single working year. Really. I’m not making it up. So, what makes these millionaires so extraordinary? You ready for the shocking answer? Here it is: Nothing. Nothing at all. Remember I said that there was one key thing that separated the haves from the have-nots? It’s the attitude millionaires have toward money. They have learned to control it and not let it control them. So, if you want to achieve financial security, you need to change your mindset. The sooner the better. You have to start with the belief that it’s possible for you to become a millionaire. I can give you 10,000 examples of people like you who have done it. Published on Jan 21, 2019.

For the complete script, visit



What Is the Cost of Medicare for All?


Published on Jan 3, 2019

Would you want the same quality of service you receive at the post office or the DMV when you receive medical services? This video from Job Creators Network details precisely how "Medicare for All" would lead to health services that are just like every other government service: tedious, inefficient and disorganized. This video is part of a collaborative business and economics project with Job Creators Network and Information Station. To learn more, visit

Script: Have you ever waited in line for hours at the state-run DMV? Or wanted to pull your hair out at the government-operated Post Office? Well if some members of Congress have it their way, government red tape and lackluster customer service would also extend to health care. Government run health care has recently been repackaged as Medicare for All and is a big move away from free market competition. As a result, the quality of service will likely drop and taxes will skyrocket. Many medical professionals have also indicated they won’t participate in a government-run health care system—so you may not be able to keep your existing doctor. In practice, this could mean waiting hours for much needed medical care or up to a year for surgery—a major problem for time sensitive procedures. The price tag of Medicare for All is also jaw-dropping. Instituting the program is estimated to cost over $3 trillion per year. That’s more than the U.S. government spent on the military, healthcare, social security and other entitlement benefits combined in 2015. Inevitably, that additional financial burden would fall onto the American taxpayer—slowing economic growth and stifling business expansion. Medicare for All may sound good in a campaign stump speech, but putting the idea into practice is risky and comes down to one question: How do we pay for it?


WWI: The War That Changed Everything.


Think of all the horrors of the 20th Century: The Holocaust. The Bolshevik Revolution. The Cold War. Were it not for the assassination of one Austro-Hungarian archduke in 1914, none of those events would have ever happened. Historian and author Andrew Roberts explains.

Script: As an historian, I’m often asked if I could stop one event in modern history from happening, what would it be? My answer is World War I. If there had been no World War I, there would have been no Russian Revolution, no World War II, no Holocaust, no Cold War. And that doesn’t even consider the millions who died in the war itself. Following the end of the Napoleonic Wars in 1815, Europe experienced an unprecedented period of economic growth. Brought about by the Industrial Revolution, this new prosperity spawned rapid developments in science, medicine, art, and political philosophy. The future of civilization never looked brighter. And then, suddenly, it all went up in flames. The fuse was lit in June 1914, in a street in Sarajevo, Bosnia. It was there that Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the heir to the Austro-Hungarian empire, was assassinated by a Serbian nationalist. It should have been no more than a sad footnote in history. Instead, it changed history. Austria-Hungary, seeking to avenge the Archduke’s murder, declared war on Serbia. But before taking this drastic step, it asked for—and received—a blessing from its powerful ally, Germany. Serbia, knowing that it had no chance against Austria-Hungary, called on its ally, Russia, to defend it. Russia agreed. To strengthen its hand, Russia solicited French support should war break out. France, ever suspicious of German intentions, assented. Germany then made a pre-emptive move to take France out of the war. The German command, having long planned this war, invaded France through neutral Belgium. This prompted Britain to join France against Germany. Suddenly, the entire continent was engulfed in war. The key player was Germany. Their strategy was to punch through Belgium and France and capture Paris before the French had time to react. This was the so-called Schlieffen Plan, named after the German general who conceived it. With France conquered, they would turn their attention to Russia. That Germany thought it would actually work comes down to one man, Germany’s leader, Kaiser Wilhelm II. The Emperor of Germany from 1888 until his forced abdication in 1918, Wilhelm was a profoundly unpleasant, unstable and vicious personality, who suggested that Jews could be dealt with by gas. By 1914, he believed that Germany should not only dominate Europe, but the entire world. Had the Schlieffen Plan worked, Germany most certainly would have. But it didn’t work. The British and the French put up stiff resistance in the west. Russia did the same in the east. The losses incurred by all sides were immediate—and appalling. Published on Dec 31, 2018.

For the complete script, visit



Ronald Reagan Discusses Gun Control Laws.


Published on Dec 27, 2018

In a 1983 speech to the NRA, President Ronald Reagan explained why trust and personal responsibility are essential for gun ownership. Nicholas Johnson, professor of Law at Fordham University, then discusses why stricter gun laws do not reduce gun violence. Never miss a new video. Join PragerU now for free:



How the Reformation Shaped Your World


Can one man change the world? The life and work of Martin Luther prove the answer to that question is an unqualified, “yes.” Stephen Cornils of the Wartburg Theological Seminary details the rebellion that fractured a centuries-old religion and changed the course of history.

Script: Five hundred years ago, on October 31, 1517, a German Catholic monk by the name of Martin Luther posted some complaints he had about the Catholic Church on a church door in Wittenberg, Germany. Luther was upset by the Church practice of selling what were known as “indulgences” to wealthy patrons. Indulgences might be loosely described as “get out of hell free” cards: pay this amount to the Church and the Church would make sure you don’t suffer unduly for your sins in the hereafter. Luther felt very strongly that the practice not only made the Church look bad in the eyes of the common people, but had no scriptural basis. He believed the Church needed to reform itself or would lose its legitimacy. Nobody, including Luther, thought that his complaints—and he had made a list of 95 of them—would amount to much. He simply wanted to spark a discussion on an issue that deeply concerned him. Instead, he set off a chain reaction that literally changed the course of history. The name we give to this change is the Protestant Reformation. Had Luther limited his criticism of the Church to indulgences as his friend, the Dutch scholar Erasmus, urged him to do, the matter might have been resolved and the old order preserved. But the headstrong Luther was not someone to be restrained. Luther was what we could call today a flawed individual. He was brilliant and charismatic, but he was also vindictive and stubborn to a fault, and at the end of his life, sadly anti-Semitic. Luther believed there should be no separation between the Bible and the believer. Every individual should have access to the word of God, Luther contended, as any priest did—or even the Pope. We take this view for granted now, but in the 16th century it was a radical concept. And here’s why: For more than a thousand years, the Church had been the dominant religious and political authority in Europe. It alone taught Christians how to understand the Bible. Luther was now challenging the very basis of this authority. Not surprisingly, the Church didn’t take it well. What began as a squabble between a bold monk and the Catholic hierarchy soon developed into a titanic and bloody struggle that split Europe into opposing religious factions. But the consequences of Luther’s ideas extended far beyond a religious dispute. It’s not an exaggeration to say that as a result of Luther’s ideas the modern individual was born—a free actor endowed with God-given rights that exist independent of government or any other institution. Each person could find those rights by reading and interpreting the Bible for himself. Published on Dec 24, 2018.

For the complete script, visit


Why Obamacare Doesn't Work As Promised.


Published on Dec 20, 2018

President Obama made many promises to the American people regarding health care reform — but the Affordable Care Act was destined to fail. Why? Lanhee Chen of the Hoover Institute explains why government-run health care is not the answer. Never miss a new video. Join PragerU for free:


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!




Please send to friends, post on Facebook, twitter, etc…

Over 3,000 commercial free archived shows are available on our podcast site here.  


Ways to subscribe to the American Conservative University Podcast

Click here to subscribe via iTunes

Click here to subscribe via RSS

You can also subscribe via Stitcher

You can also subscribe via SoundCloud

If you like this episode head on over to iTunes and kindly leave us a rating, a review and subscribe! People find us through our good reviews.



You can ask your questions, make comments, submit ideas for shows and lots more. Let your voice be heard.

Download our FREE iOS App.

Download our FREE Android App.

Email us at