Everyone I know wants to ensure that children have access to a quality education that will set them up for success. The debate over how to best provide such opportunities has raged for decades. In simple terms, one side desires greater choice and freedom, while the other insists that improved education can only be achieved through strict government control of schools. 
Rather than rehashing the same old arguments, let us instead engage in a thought exercise regarding government’s involvement in another important aspect of our lives — access to food and nutrition — and see if we can draw some relevant parallels. After all, while access to education is important, it can be argued that access to food is just as important — if not more so. With that in mind, what would happen if we put the government in charge of grocery stores? 
Let’s say that at the height of the depression, the government decided to set up thousands of grocery stores across the country. Instead of shopping where you wish, you would be assigned a government grocery store based on your address. Instead of selecting what items to put in your shopping cart, a government agency would be responsible for determining what groceries were best for you and your family, citing a “scientific” approach to necessary caloric intake and dietary recommendations. Of course, if you are unsatisfied with their recommendations, you would be able to lobby your state or federal representative and ask that certain products be added via a legislative process. But, like all lobbying strategies, money generally speaks louder than the voices of consumers. As for those employed by the government grocery store, none of them would be rewarded for their work ethic, innovation, or creativity. Instead, they would be rewarded solely for their seniority. 
Now that we have built this hypothetical system, when asked whether we would prefer such an approach, the vast majority of us would likely decide against a government takeover of our grocery stores. Then, we must ask, why are we happy for this level of government control to be applied to our education system?
The government assigns your child to a school based on your address. Parents have little to no say when it comes to the curriculum offered in schools. Problems or concerns regarding the quality of education or selected curriculum are addressed through a legislative process rather than consumer choice. Teachers are not rewarded based on the quality of the service they provide but their level of seniority within the government system.
Again, why do we accept full government control of schools when we would never accept such control over our grocery stores? There are two possible answers to this question.
<ol>
<li>Perceived Lack of Choice: People accept what they have always known. If all you have ever experienced is government controlled education, you may not even know there is an alternative. If we had grown used to decades of government grocery stores then, no matter how bad they were failing to provide an adequate service, people would hesitate to implement any significant changes. Once the government has convinced you that you are wholly dependent, it can be hard to break their psychological grip.</li>
<li> Propaganda and Funding: The argument in favor of government controlled education isn’t limited to convincing us that such a system is the only viable option. In addition, alternatives are mischaracterized as being anti-child, anti-teacher and anti-education. The Federal Department of Education has an annual budget of almost $70 billion a year, and education is one of the largest budget items in every state. With that money funding unions, lobbyists, and other members of the educational complex, is it surprising that some are more concerned with protecting their circumstances than pushing for quality?</li>
</ol>
The first step to solving this problem of stagnation and manipulation is to provide parents, students and teachers the ability to make choices in pursuit of achieving superior results. Instead of lobbyists and elected officials politicizing everything from curriculum to school sports to hiring restrictions, the actual consumers of education — students and parents — should have the opportunity to vote with their feet — and their tax dollars — for the institutions that provide the best service. Parents frustrated over a lack of support, focus or funding would be able to select institutions which cater to their needs, and the needs of their child. Not only that, students with learning challenges would no longer be trapped in schools which lack the resources or expertise to truly help them flourish. 
It isn’t only students and parents who would benefit. Teachers trapped in failing institutions would have a chance to escape based on their performance and potential. Instead of politicians and unions allocating funding based on hierarchy and position systems, parents could instead flock to schools which truly value their teachers and compensate them appropriately. 
Ultimately this is a debate over who should control education. For decades, it has been politicians and lobbyists, with the result being a series of “one size fits all” approaches which have failed millions of our students and driven some of our best and brightest teachers from the profession. There is an alternative, and we have an opportunity to take back control. Our children deserve that chance. 
The views expressed in this opinion piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

School Children

We Wouldn’t Let Government Control Our Grocery Stores. Why Do We Let Them Control Our Schools?

Department of Education

Education

School Choice

Green Berets, or Army Special Forces, are a specially trained unit within the US Military, specifically designed to engage in Unconventional Warfare (UW) and Counter Insurgency (COIN). They have many additional areas of expertise, but UW and COIN form the basis of the unit’s existence. As such, they are trained to work in 12 person teams which operate “By, Through and With” the local population in order to achieve their objectives. 
As you may expect, there is a great deal of “door kicking” involved in such an occupation, but the Green Berets’ main function is to work with indigenous groups. This includes training, advising, and developing a cultural understanding of the operational environment they are working in, so that they can accomplish their mission. 
I was serving in Iraq in 2006 as a Green Beret when I noticed that every village we visited and every tribal elder we spoke to were requesting generators, simply in order to keep the power on. I found this to be an interesting request as we were operating in a country that — on the surface — didn’t lack access to the natural resources used by the rest of the world to keep the lights on and fuel their respective economies. How was it possible that such an oil rich country lacked the basic resources to provide power?
During a discussion with an Iraqi Colonel, I posed this very question. Being that the need for generators was so prevalent, how was it that some enterprising Iraqi had not started a business providing the necessary resources? The Colonel smiled and proceeded to explain that in Iraq, there were restrictions and regulations on the size and type of generators that could be imported into the country or developed locally. This led to a lack of supply of large generators. I could certainly understand the problem with government regulations standing in the way of progress, but why couldn’t smaller generators be used?
He explained that Iraq is largely a tribal society. Therefore, if you were providing power to your cousin and they were unable to pay, you wouldn’t be inclined to shut off their power. I can understood that conundrum, so I asked why this problem wasn’t avoided by choosing to provide power to people in a different area.
He finally looked at me and said, “Why would we go to the trouble when the Americans will provide it for free?” That’s when the lightbulb went on. Our own policies in Iraq were stunting the very organic economic progress we were attempting to ensure. By providing certain products and services — at the expense of the US taxpayer — we were standing in the way of the development of necessary markets within Iraq. 
The lesson was simple. In a war-torn area, assistance can be warranted and even needed, but when you infantilize an entire population through economic dependency, you are not doing them any favors in the long run. Such a state of affairs raises the question of whether this was the actual objective, with the goal to control people instead of creating an environment of political and economic independence.  
If this economic lesson applies to a place like Iraq, which was undergoing significant political and economic changes in the midst of conflict, it is even more applicable to countries where such difficulties do not present themselves. 
When confronting poverty or a lack of economic development, it can be incredibly tempting for well-meaning policy makers and politicians to automatically assume that the “solution” is government control and redistribution of resources. To take products or services from one area and mandate by law that they be used in another. But an emphasis on “redistribution” ignores the fundamental question that first needs to be asked. Why aren’t the necessary products and services being provided in the under-served area in the first place? Without first answering this question, the redistributionist ignores the underlying conditions in order to temporarily alleviate a problem, instead of actually addressing it in a way that prevents it from continuing. 
I used to believe that the goal of redistributionists was noble and genuine, and that it was only their methods that were flawed. I am beginning to think that there is another goal which does not make its way into editorials or campaign speeches: the desire for control. 
A population which becomes dependent upon government subsidy or intervention for its economic wellbeing is no longer free in any real sense. The incentive to create, adapt and innovate is automatically thwarted by a political elite which treats them like children and, like all bad parents, expects them to obey lest they lose access to the benefits they are now receiving. 
In war-torn Iraq, I learned why such an approach is completely counter-productive. Imagine my surprise when I found a similar approach being applied here at home, for the same reason. 
The views expressed in this opinion piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Nick Freitas

What Being A Green Beret In Iraq Taught Me About Economics and Freedom

Iraq

Iraq War

Readers Pass

Virginia

The United States has been in a constant state of war since 9/11. The war in Afghanistan began on October 7th 2001, and at 19 years and 2 months is the longest conflict in US history. For context, the Vietnam War lasted 17 years and 4 months, and the Iraq War lasted 8 years and 9 months. After over 19 years of war, it is time for us to take stock of what we have accomplished — and failed to accomplish — in order to determine our best path moving forward when it comes to foreign policy. 
Joe Biden shocked many in his own party when he selected Gen. Lloyd Austin — a retired four-star Army general who served as the 12th commander of United States Central Command — over Michele Flournoy — Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Strategy under President Bill Clinton and Under Secretary of Defense for Policy under President Barack Obama — as his pick for Secretary of Defense. One primary reason this decision is seen as controversial is that Gen. Austin — having retired from the armed services in 2016 — has not been separated from the military for the minimum of 7 years, and will therefore require a congressional waiver to be appointed.
The logic behind this requirement is that it protects the notion of civilian control over the military. Personally, I am a firm believer in such civilian control over our armed forces, but I also recognize the benefits of a Secretary of Defense who understands life at the business end of foreign policy, as opposed to someone who has made a lot of decisions about going to war without actually having to do any of the fighting. 
I served in Iraq at the same time that Gen. Austin did. We didn’t travel in the same circles, as he was a general and I was a Sergeant First Class with 1st Special Forces Group conducting combat operations in Iraq in 2006 and 2008. My overall impression of him at the time was that he was a competent commander. Of course, that is not to say that I agreed with every decision either the administration or every commander was making. However, given that his job was to carry out our commitment in Iraq, I believe he did so to the best of his ability with the resources he had available.
As someone who served both in the military and now in elected office, the concern is not necessarily who serves as Secretary of Defense. Instead, it’s the kind of strategy they will be charged with carrying out, and whether their experience and advice will be considered when it comes to crafting defense policy, instead of simply being required to make the best of whatever decisions are made by others.
When I decided to leave the military after my second combat tour and 11 years of active duty, many were confused. Why would I leave in the middle of my career? I loved being in the Special Forces, and loved the people I served alongside. What I was tired of was having to do our job with one — and sometimes both — hands tied behind our backs. When asked why I didn’t stay to fix the problem, my answer was simple. The men and women in the armed forces aren’t the problem. Politicians and bureaucrats are. 
For too long, Congress has abdicated its responsibility to our country, our Constitution and our men and women serving in uniform. They have done so by refusing to accept their responsibility for the troops they place in harm’s way. Loose interpretations of the separation of powers have created a situation where the longest “wars” in US History are undeclared, with Congress happy to approve National Defense Authorization Acts (NDAAs) without actually declaring war. This allows Congress to approve or disapprove of war depending on how the political winds are blowing. Both sides of the political aisle use this tactic, leaving our servicemen and women to suffer the consequences.
Going forward, the most important thing to watch is not only the individual selections for positions within our Department of Defense team, but whether or not we are going to craft a coherent defense policy given the obvious threats we face. Frankly, those threats are not coming from Afghanistan. 
The reason I fully support bringing our troops home is because I do not believe that we have, nor have we ever had, a truly coherent strategy for the region. Our military has done everything that has been asked of them. It is time to realize that whatever hopes we might have harbored for an Afghanistan created in our image, it was never a practical strategy given the history or culture of the country. Instead, we need to reorient our strategy to adequately prepare for future threats, as well as the real ones before us. 
If we are serious about remaining the world’s only military superpower — which we should — then it is time to realize that the strategy of invading and subsequently taking over the government and economy of a country we don’t truly understand is a futile mission. The job of the US military is not to make the world “safe for democracy,” but rather to protect the United States, to identify relevant threats, and to neutralize those threats. This does not mean we can’t work with local parties in order to achieve greater stability, but we have to be realistic about what “stability” looks like. 
The greatest threats to US interests in the 21st century come from a nuclear Iran, a saber-rattling Russia and the growing aggression and ambition of China. Investment in defensive and offensive cyber capabilities is critical. Greater emphasis on Counter Insurgency (COIN) and Unconventional Warfare (UW) is necessary, and adjusting our response to better understand and implement countermeasures to the asymmetric warfare strategies of our opposition must feature prominently in our approach. In addition to our own defense commitments, cooperation with allies is vital to ensuring that the United States does not bear the entirety of the responsibility when combatting aggression. 
Central to this objective is the importance of striking the proper tone. Regardless of your opinion of the efficacy of the Trump administration’s foreign policy, it wasn’t the “peace through apology” strategy of the Obama and Biden years that achieved the historic treaties Trump brokered in the Middle East and the Balkans. 
Peace is not maintained by endless wars, nor is it maintained by equivocation. It is maintained by a careful balance between the ability to use overwhelming force when necessary, and the wisdom required to understand and apply the best form of escalation. My concern is that the Biden Administration, regardless of who is picked to run individual departments or agencies, will not be able to demonstrate the political will to conduct war or achieve peace. Decisions will likely be determined by CNN polls rather than a comprehensive defense strategy that recognizes the importance of US military and economic dominance combined with the respect of proper constitutional processes before deploying troops or resources. 
Our global competitors and enemies are watching closely. They feared Trump because they knew he was willing to use force, even though his record in office showed greater military restraint than several administrations before him. 
The real and only question facing the Biden administration is whether they will attempt to deliver peace through strength, or peace through equivocation. Only one of those approaches has ever achieved the desired result. “Speak softly but carry a big stick,” as Teddy Roosevelt said, can be an effective strategy, but only if the stick is big enough and only if you are incredibly careful about when, where and against whom you use it. Unfortunately, numerous administrations of both parties have gotten it wrong in the past. Let’s hope our future defense strategy has the political will to reject both the endless wars of numerous administrations and the feckless equivocation of the Obama years.  
Nick Freitas is a member of the Virginia House of Delegates and a Green Beret combat veteran. 
The views expressed in this opinion piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Military Salute

Ending Endless Wars, And Achieving Peace Through Strength, Not Equivocation

Afghanistan

Department of Defense

Foreign Policy

Before Lenin tried to make a distinction between “socialism” and “communism,” the terms were often used interchangeably. This was not by accident. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engles — who together developed the ideology now known as Marxism — certainly didn’t see much separating the two. The act of supplanting “communism” with “socialism” is actually more of a successful modern branding exercise than an acknowledgement of any substantive difference between the theories.
After all, championing “communism” to anyone even remotely familiar with Stalin’s purges in the Soviet Union, Mao’s collectivization schemes which starved millions in China, or Pol Pot’s massacres in Cambodia is a pretty tough sell. So, leftists in predominately free countries must find a different way to pitch their favorite failed concept, pivoting socialism away from the label of “communism” by describing their political and economic philosophy in terms of “objectives” rather than policies.
This approach was on full display during a debate on the floor of the Virginia House of Delegates when socialist legislator — and potential gubernatorial candidate — Lee Carter described socialism as a desire for people to have food, medicine, and affordable housing. Interestingly, nowhere in his speech did he actually define what socialism is, or how he planned to achieve these “noble” goals. The “how” was replaced entirely by the “what,” with Carter simply listing a series of objectives as if the ends were the means. 
Before falling for this trick, shouldn’t we at least explore the “means” socialists work to keep hidden? For example, if the argument is that the abolition of private property results in their desired end state, what are the actual outcomes in societies which have followed this same path? How are people treated? Are the poor better off? Is the goal of greater “freedom and tolerance” actually achieved?
On the subject of tolerance, one of the most glaring differences between free societies and those under the control of socialist regimes is how citizens are treated when they dissent. In the United States, if you wish to live as a socialist, you are free to do so. You can get together with like-minded people, set up a commune and share all of your resources. You can peacefully live out your political and economic theories with very little interference from the government. In fact, not only will legislators like me leave you alone, but we will also defend your right to live the way you prefer, and even try to lower government restrictions on your freedoms. The only stipulation is that others are not forced against their will to live on such communes or contribute to them. In a free society which values individual liberty and personal choice, the goal is not to impose a particular lifestyle, but to preserve liberty for all, provided that the liberty of others is not infringed in the process.
What is the result of this form of dissent in a socialist country? Can you freely decide to get together with like-minded people and choose to implement free market solutions to problems? History would argue otherwise. People living in the socialist utopias of the Soviet Union, China, Venezuela, Cuba, and others, found out very quickly — and painfully — that desiring liberty in the form of freedom of association, exchange, or religion would not only result in punishment, but imprisonment, torture, or even death. Despite what the “tolerant” left claim, our free societies allow for the peaceful coexistence of different world views and preferences. It is the socialist societies which demand compliance.
The Berlin Wall was one of the most infamous manifestations of this reality. Free societies aren’t erecting barriers to keep their people inside their borders. Free societies aren’t restricting ownership of capital, controlling the arts or entertainment, or restricting the press. Socialist societies, on the other hand, are. This is because the key and crucial feature of socialism is not “equality,” but authoritarianism. Throughout history, socialist regimes — whether they arise out of armed conflict or through “democratic” elections — ultimately have to resort to violence, oppression, and the elimination of individual liberty. This is not a “bug” in socialist theory. It’s a feature. 
Beyond the obvious fact that socialism actively relies upon force and coercion to implement its central plans, all that is needed to prove the inefficacy and immorality of socialism is to analyze the desperate actions of those trapped under such regimes. While socialists in Congress decry the United States and its free market system as evil, racist, and oppressive, how many American workers have hastily constructed makeshift rafts and risked their lives to sail to Cuba? How many people who lived in former West Germany risked everything to make it into East Germany? How many American immigrants and refugees are waiting at Venezuela’s border to enjoy their latest attempt to implement socialist policies “for the good of the people?”
Socialism, like its immoral counterpart communism, fails by design. It impoverishes and oppresses people both because its reliance on central planning is economically ineffective, and because it cannot exist without the application of violent authoritarianism. When such violence exists, freedom is impossible.
Nick Freitas is a member of the Virginia House of Delegates and a Green Beret combat veteran. 
The views expressed in this opinion piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Lenin

Rebranding Communism As Socialism Doesn’t Change Its Violent, Intolerant Reality

Communism

Democratic Socialism

Socialism

If you were to listen only to Sen. Bernie Sanders or Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, you would think that capitalism is a particularly malicious system of economics, based solely upon greed, and responsible for all of our society’s ills. Despite the stark contrast between the quality of life of those living under free market capitalist or government-controlled socialist economies, the latter system is growing in popularity among many Americans. Given that so many people are now experiencing a standard of living deemed unimaginable just decades ago, why are they so dissatisfied with the economic system through which such historic gains were achieved?
Shortly after leaving the military, it was a college English literature class which provided me with some insight into why so many of our youth are rejecting free markets in favor of socialism. Just 4 weeks into the class, students were asked to read the Communist Manifesto. You’re certainly not alone if you’re surprised that the work of a German communist was required reading in an English literature class.
The following week, the professor began the class with the question, “So, what do you think of Capitalism?” Remembering that this was the only book on the reading list which featured any form of economic analysis, it was unsurprising that one student raised his hand and stated that he felt “Capitalism is what is destroying this country.” When I asked him whether he could define capitalism, the student responded, saying “Capitalism is a rigid based class system where the people at the top hoard resources.” Pointing out that this was Marx’s caricature of capitalism, I asked for the actual definition of capitalism.
Intervening, the professor asked me to define it, to which my response was simply “Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production and distribution, through a system of voluntary exchange.” After we agreed on the objective definition of capitalism, the other student quickly pivoted, exclaiming “I’m not saying I’m a communist. I just think the truth is somewhere in the middle.”
What this anecdote showed was how the simple act of accurately defining capitalism completely altered the conversation, with capitalism no longer being the single driving force behind the supposed “destruction” of the country. What would have happened had we accepted Marx’s false definition?
Let’s push one step further and question whether “the truth is somewhere in the middle.” In simple terms, communism aims to enforce public ownership of the means of production through a system of central planning. Private property is abolished, and the government determines who owns what and under what conditions any form of exchange can take place. Conversely, capitalism respects and encourages private property, with exchanges only taking place by mutual agreement and — ideally — to mutual benefit.
So, if the truth is “somewhere in the middle,” what part of private ownership and free exchange should be sacrificed to the government? Which voluntary transactions should be made involuntary? Is it surprising that, given the actual definitions of capitalism and communism, many actually prefer the incentive structure which they previously blame for “destroying the country?”
Those who value the unique free market benefits of capitalism, and want to see them continue, must apply the lessons learned from this English literature class and engage in this debate. This doesn’t just mean defining these ideologies, but demonstrating that the argument in favor of capitalism over communism is not just an economic argument but a moral argument.
Firstly, the benefits of capitalism are entirely moral. Even a cursory look at resources such as the <a href="https://www.heritage.org/index/">Index of Economic Freedom</a> and the <a href="https://www.cato.org/economic-freedom-world">Economic Freedom of the World</a> index will demonstrate that free market and capitalist societies, not centrally planned communist ones, experience greater wealth, health, upward economic mobility, upward social mobility, human rights, political rights, and equality.
Not only do its side effects provide an undeniable moral good, the very foundation of capitalism is rooted in the understanding and protection of human rights. Capitalism doesn’t produce optimal results through exploitation or oppression, but through the recognition of our basic human desire to direct our own lives, and by providing an incentive structure that promotes cooperation. History has shown that trading such an effective and moral incentive structure for one that places a centralized authority in charge of deciding who gets what is not “progressive”. It is disastrous.
For much of human history, the vast majority of people lived in poverty, limited by various legal structures and economic theories. Whether it be the conquest ethic, feudalism, or oligarchy, these systems protected an elite few who had the authority to manage society and the economy in any way they saw fit. Socialism was presented as a response to centuries of such injustice, but ultimately surpassed them by adding to the world’s poverty, violence, and oppression.
In comparison, in just 300 years, the expansion of capitalism and the theory of free market economies has provided the greatest and most effective path out of poverty the world has ever seen. Such success was only possible because we realized that we can achieve far more through individual freedom and voluntary cooperation than we ever could through force or control.
Capitalism is a moral system, and therefore, a system worth defending.
Nick Freitas is a member of the Virginia House of Delegates and a Green Beret combat veteran. 
The views expressed in this opinion piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Bernie Sanders

It Is Our Moral Duty To Defend Capitalism

Capitalism

Free Market

Science and the “scientific method” is defined as:
<blockquote>“The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.”</blockquote>
How many times have we seen a leftist politician, professor or “journalist” declare that we must “follow the science?” Given the definition above, a quick and interesting experiment would be to ask those who demand that we “follow the science” to first explain the scientific method, or even simpler, the basic laws of logic. 
Of course, the same politicians who demand that we follow the science are often quick to abandon such desires when they don’t suit their purpose. For example, science is pretty clear when it comes to conception being the moment when human life begins, but that doesn’t stop the left from describing a baby in the womb as a mere “clump of cells.” The significant biological differences between men and women are also easily ignored in favor of political expediency. 
One minute they will advocate for economic and educational programs for women, and the next argue that gender is nothing more than a social construct. When it comes to the environment, how many times have we been told that the latest projection model has predicted that the world is about to end, only to find out that the model was horribly wrong? During the COVID-19 pandemic, Democrats have claimed that churchgoers “don’t care if people die,” and also that refusing to attend a massive street protest is proof that you don’t care about marginalized people. Time after time, the left refuse to change their policy approach based on scientific counter evidence, and instead seek out new models and theories to confirm their positions.
Ironically, beyond the issue of scientific hypocrisy, many of the same people demanding a strict adherence to science also often embrace the postmodernist notion that there is no such thing as “absolute truth,” or that the laws of logic are nothing more than “western” constructs. Given that it’s pretty difficult to utilize the scientific method without the laws of logic, if truth is purely subjective, then where does using the scientific method get us? After all, logic, reason and the scientific process were meant to help guide us to rational conclusions.
Ultimately, the scientific method has a good track record in helping us come to logical conclusions about observable reality. One of the most common observable realities is that politicians will manipulate or abandon science the moment it doesn’t help them advance their preferred policies. As the saying goes, “intent is prior to content.” Instead of following science, the political left prefers to either drag science around by the throat as a tool, or move the goalposts entirely when convenient. Perhaps the most recent admission of this came from Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who proudly <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/01/06/ocasio-cortez_people_being_more_concerned_about_me_being_factually_correct_than_morally_right.html">stated</a> that “I think that there&#8217;s a lot of people more concerned about being precisely, factually, and semantically correct than about being morally right.” Such a position should really make us all skeptical of her approach to both science and morality. 
The 20th century witnessed numerous leftist regimes which promised to reorder every level of society with a “scientific” approach to policy. Socialist and communist dictators were going to solve poverty and inequality through forced redistribution, collectivization, and the abolition of private property. The result was famine, displacement, and oppression. They continued these policies for decades at the cost of millions of lives in pursuit of “scientific socialism”. When they failed to deliver, those controlling the “science” simply demanded more power and more control to conduct more “experiments”. In leftist regimes throughout history, “science” is whatever the state says it is, and the same is becoming true for many politicians in modern day America, where one’s definition of science is largely determined by one’s motives. 
If you are motivated by a belief in the inherent value of human beings — and therefore their right to pursue happiness, knowledge and meaning — you must also support the freedom of inquiry that allows science to thrive, and reject its political manipulation and abuse. 
We must be aware that, for those who believe that government exists to “perfect us,” science is nothing other than an effective tool. Not for helping us understand observable reality, but rather in providing superficial justification for the further accumulation of power. 
Nick Freitas is a member of the Virginia House of Delegates and a Green Beret combat veteran. 
The views expressed in this opinion piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez  And Bernie Sanders Attend Green New Deal Rally At Howard University

The Left’s Political Manipulation of ‘Science’

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Democrats