Putting an End to Child Voting

Posted on August 10, 2017 by Robert Ringer


While everyone is caught up in nonexistent Russian collusion, high-level government leaks to the media, and palace intrigue, I thought it would be a good time give you some relief and focus on something longer term but much more substantive — the need to repeal the 26th Amendment, which gives 18 year old children the right to vote.  (No, they shouldn’t be fighting in wars, either.)

In researching this, I reviewed an interesting article on the University of Rochester Medical Center’s website titled “Understanding the Teen Brain.”  The piece pointed to recent research which found that the rational part of a teen’s brain isn’t fully developed, and won’t be fully developed, until at least age 25.

Scientists have long known that adults think with the prefrontal cortex, the brain’s rational compartment, which is the area that responds to situations with good judgment and an awareness of long-term consequences.  Teens, however, process information with the amygdala, which is the emotional part of the brain.

Thus, when teens experience overwhelming emotional input, they often can’t explain later what they were thinking.  That’s because they weren’t thinking at all; they were feeling.  It’s a result of their frontal lobes not being fully developed, because the frontal lobes control decision-making, rational thinking, judgment, and the ability to plan ahead and resist impulses.

As I read this, my mind harkened back to 1968 and Bobby Kennedy’s presidential run against an incumbent president, Lyndon Johnson, for the Democratic nomination.  Kennedy was a corrupt and dangerous man who, like all Kennedys, lived his life by one set of rules while insisting that others live by rules that he deemed to be right for them.

It’s scary to think what would have happened to America had Kennedy not been assassinated.  I believe he would have been a shoo-in to become president (especially considering the fact that incumbent Lyndon Johnson decided not to run again), and probably would have succeeded in transforming the U.S. into a full-fledged socialist country decades before Barack Obama came on the scene with his fundamental-change plans.

Kennedy was considered a champion of that greatest of all political scams, “social justice,”  a catchall euphemism for the idea that any thugs powerful or clever enough to gain control of the government have the moral authority to decide what is unjust, which persons have been treated unjustly, and who should be forced to help those whom they believe to be victims of any such injustice.

Of course, rational adults realize that in reality there is no such thing as social justice in the absolute sense of the term.  That’s why such an abstract concept can only be implemented by force, which in turn requires the jackboot of iron-fisted leaders with such melancholy names as Zedong, Stalin, Castro, and Minh.

While RFK, like Obama, attracted left-wing radicals from many sectors of society, the group I most identify with him is young adults.  The kids who voted for BHO in 2008 and 2012 are two generations removed from Bobby Kennedy’s adoring, youthful supporters, but, like their predecessors, they, too, got caught up in the save-the-planet, anti-business, spread-the-wealth hysteria.

Voters in the 18 to 29 age group voted in favor of Obama by a whopping 66-31 percentage spread.  And since they comprised 20 percent of the number of people who voted, they were able to put a totally unqualified social-justice guy into the White House, with no comprehension whatsoever that his policies were a threat to their own futures.

Thus, Obama’s ascendancy to the power throne was made possible by millions of young adults whose brains were not even physiologically capable of making rational decisions!  And the kiddies darn near did the same for Hillary by giving her 55% of their vote.  Very scary stuff.

Voting for people to govern other human beings is, at best, a questionable and corrupt process — a process that is all about lies, mudslinging, deceitfulness, pandering, and, yes, bribery.  But if we must elect officials to govern us, I would at least like to see as much of the irrationality expunged by having the 26th Amendment repealed.

In fact, I would like to see an amendment that would require voters to be at least 30 years of age.   It seems to me that even though research indicates that the brain is fully developed by age 25, the newly formed adult brain should be given a reasonable period of time to experience enough life to be in a position to shed itself of the bad habits it has developed over a period of 25 years.

This is particularly true if a young adult has made the mistake of going to college and subjecting himself to large doses of misinformation about history, economics, and the original intent of the Founding Fathers, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution.

Of course, there are exceptions to all this.  Some people actually are mature enough to vote at 18, while others are not mature enough to vote at 40.  Life is imperfect, so you have to make arbitrary judgments about a lot of things.

But the one thing I can say with certainty is that 30 is a whole lot better than 18 when it comes to knowledge, wisdom, common sense, and, above all, rational thinking.  And if 30 isn’t possible, I’d settle for age 25 over age 18.

Perhaps it’s wishful thinking, but once Trump gets the economy exploding, gets the leaks under control, and gets Mueller the Malicious One out of the way, I’d like to see him send the left into hysterics by proposing a repeal of the 26th Amendment and revoking the voting rights of impressionable kids who are still emotionally attached to tree-hugging, global-warming fantasies, transgender politics, and the many marvelous benefits of socialism.

As Voltaire warned, “Men will stop committing atrocities when men stop believing absurdities.”  And for the most part, because their brains are not fully developed, young people tend to believe many more absurdities than adults with fully developed brains.

Perhaps all this is nothing more than wishful thinking on my part, but, then, stranger things have happened … like, for example,  Donald Trump becoming president of the United States.

Robert Ringer

Robert Ringer is an American icon whose unique insights into life have helped millions of readers worldwide. He is also the author of two New York Times #1 bestselling books, both of which have been listed by The New York Times among the 15 best-selling motivational books of all time.

44 responses to “Putting an End to Child Voting”

  1. Bryan says:

    I fully agree, Robert. My conversations with young people have lead me to believe that there must be some kind of sinister plot afoot to turn their brains to mush. Well, most of them, anyway. I've spoken with a few rational and quite intelligent young people who give me hope for the future. I think a dose of reality, such as working a job and paying bills for a few years, would be an appropriate prerequisite to being given the privilege of voting. The cold, hard slap of reality has a way of clearing the cobwebs.

  2. Richard Head says:

    Interesting, Robert.

    Why not ban from voting individuals who receive money directly from the federal or their state government?

    In this way, no elected officials, appointed officials, government rank-and-file employees (including military members), Social Security recipients, Medicare recipients, Medicaid recipients, other welfare recipients, etc. would be allowed to vote.



    • Richard Lee Van Der says:

      Yes, an EXCELLENT idea! Except for SS since people paid into that.Didn't they?

      • Richard Head says:

        One can argue that he/she paid into the Social Security system, Richard; however, what a lot of individuals do not know is that there is no "entitlement" to the amount they paid into the system.

        Regardless of the "entitlement" issue and to deal with your concern, perhaps The FOLKS who paid into Social Security should be allowed to vote until they draw down the dollars they paid into the system, plus some amount of interest on their contributions? In this way, once they receive in benefits the amount they contributed plus interest and if they still remain on what then would clearly be the public dole their voting rights would be revoked.

    • Bill says:

      Thanks for your reply Dick Head. Judging from your response your brain hasn't matured enough for rational thought either. Have a great day!

    • Robert Ringer RJR says:

      I am 100% for that and have been for decades. I had it in this article, but removed it with the thought of writing about it in more detail in a separate article.

      • Richard Head says:

        Wonderful, Robert!

        Thank you for your continued zealous advocacy for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

        I remain hopeful that #RealityReasonEgoismCapitalism will come to life again in the United States of America, under the banner of Individualism.

        Have you ever seen this: http://www.theamericancapitalistparty.com/index.h…?

  3. Eldon says:

    Why don't we add to the repeal an amendment that prohibits anyone from voting on any issue in which they are not directly affected, for example if you don't own real estate you can't vote for or against anything that involves real estate taxes.

  4. Heidi McCauley says:

    Thank you. I love your last sentence. Stranger things have happened indeed. I have great hopes, and you always present thoughts that strenghten them. Your columns should be required reading in the White House. You are a treasure, Mr. Ringer.

  5. Annie Schlachet says:

    This is a terrific article! It is chock full of right information and good thinking. Some of it is, of course, contrary to public folk lore. I didnt know RFK was that corrupt. BHO is the worst president we ever had in terms of hating Americans, doing what was wrong for this country and bringing it down into weakness and the disarray we see now. I agree with your assessment of the voting age. 25 is a decent cutoff; 30 is better. Also there aught to be mandatory psychological testing for presidential candidates. Had there been in the past election season the democrats would have been forced to select a different candidate. Pre-frontal cortex damage would have been disqualified before things got under way. Thanks Robert! You are clearly over 30!!

  6. Richard Lee Van Der says:

    When and how I went to college, Michigan State University, was not a mistake. 1956, after military service, and B.A.in Philosophy 1959. Courses I selected did not contain the BS like NOW. And, students were not like the worst ones now, the idiots we see on TV. But that was a different, VERY DIFFERENT, generation. Ap parent ly parents were also different back in my early days. My parents were not "educated" but they embraced and lived good, solid values.

    • Jim Hallett says:

      Still not as bad at MSU as my alma mater, U of Michigan, which has adopted the Eastern Libtard Agenda (joined by western Libtard havens like Berkeley and Stanford) and promotes unhinged nonsense, amidst some of its stellar foundational education in law, medicine, engineering, etc. which garner it rave reviews. Look at the course offerings today, and it is no wonder why so many college grads are unemployed or when employed, unable to pass muster. I doubt that more than 1-3% of the college age generation is capable of independent thinking, and therefore should not be engaged in the immoral process of enslaving the rest of us with their vote. They overwhelmingly supported communist (socialist democrat) Bernie Sanders because they want the free stuff, extracted from the hard work of others (until those folks are either bankrupted or depart the country).

  7. Mike Riley says:

    Great piece Robert. You are spot on. I believe, as you alluded to, that the 26th amendment was adopted because of arguments from the like of the Vietnam war draft, where kids were drafted to be killed in the rice paddies of Vietnam. The logic went, that if one were old enough to die for our country, they should be old enough to vote.

    Well, today there is no draft. Our fighting men and women are volunteers, and if they happen to enlist at 18 years of age, it does not mean they have the wits and intellect to properly brandish a weapon without the experience of extreme training. Why would we want to allow them the right to brandish a vote and select leaders who will affect our lives without the experience of similar extreme training. That is, to experience the real world, and the effects political decisions have on our lives.

    • Alexander Whitaker says:

      Repealing the 26th Amendment would be age discrimination. Something that the elites both left and right have been subscribing to since the early 1980's.

  8. larajf says:

    Interesting piece and food for thought. Many of my generation didn't vote in their 20s anyway because they believed it didn't make a difference. Today's kids think that everyone should listen to them because what they have to say is so important. Maybe the next generation will get it right.

  9. IHeartDagney says:

    That ship has sailed and there is not enough political will to accomplish a repeal of this amendment. I believe that only property owners, property/income taxPAYERS, and military members, no matter their age, should be allowed to vote. How about we work on ensuring only people who are ALIVE and CITIZENS of this country can vote?

    And there is, however, MUCH political will to enact an amendment imposing term limits on Congress and the Senate. This will do as much or more good for our country than restricting the vote.

    • Jim Hallett says:

      Your idea makes total sense, since the result of voting gives control over what to steal from others, so why should people who pay NOTHING into the system be allowed to have any influence over it? Term limits has some benefit, but there seems to be an unending supply of more folks drawn to the immorality of govt. to fill their slots. The big power brokers like McCain, Schumer, et al. would be out of office, so that is a plus, but recent clowns like Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris et al. keep showing up. The swamp has an unending attraction for these immoral types!

      • IHeartDagney says:

        I don't quite agree that there is an unending supply of leftists. They keep trying to grow them in our schools, yes. But, once real life hits people in the face, the ones not going to Silicon Valley, a LOT of them learn that it's better to live in the real world. Have you noticed their election losses since 2010? WHO do they have now that's under 60 years old to lead their party? No. The left has a HUGE popularity problem, especially now that they are almost completely out of the closet as totalitarians.

        The problem is allowing the political culture to stagnate in Washington D.C. by not kicking them out after a couple of terms. If there were term limits, the descriptive phrase "citizen legislature" would again become a reality because most of the people who would run are those who wish to be of SERVICE to their country.

  10. TheLookOut says:

    Great article Robert. Voting without engaging critical thinking will be our down fall.
    Most 18 yr old boys & girls don't have a clue as to actions & consequences.
    Raging hormones will over ride rational thinking every time(they did for me).

    • Alexander Whitaker says:

      I am sorry it is age discrimination.

    • Alexander Whitaker says:

      Neurological development cannot ever be a basis for age discrimination. The fact that the brain does not mature until age 25 cannot be a basis for age discrimination if military service is required/available . If young people are addled, they are no more addled than most adults, most of whom gave Hillary Clinton the popular vote majority in the last election.

  11. Blank Reg says:

    Let’s take it a step further. 25 minimum age, or Robert’s 30, if we can pull it off, PLUS bring back the “land ownership” requirement, we’d be back in business.

  12. Roger Roger says:

    I was amused by Bill’s disparaging reply to Richard Head’s suggestion that if your income is derived from taxes, you shouldn't get a vote on how taxes are spent. According to the immutable law of self-interest, there is no way you will vote for someone who wants to get rid of your job in the interests of reducing the burden on the taxpayer to its minimum. Is that you, Bill?
    I was military – infantry, with two deployments to Vietnam 66 & 69. My wife and I had three children. We never gave them a vote in how the family income was spent and I note that my three never gave their 10 children a vote either. As my Dad always said: “If you sleep under my roof and eat my food, I’m right! You want to be right, get your own roof and your own food.” Lesson ends.
    I've always believed that only people who PAY taxes should get a say in how they are spent. Public servants do not pay tax. They are tax consumers. Why should you contribute nothing to the pie but get the same vote as someone who does? Sorry but there is no way to spin that. If you got a vote for every dollar you could prove you paid in taxes, that would change a lot of attitudes to tax and a selfless commitment you public “service”.
    Anyone who risks life and limb to protect the country, its citizens and their property, earns the right to draw pay from the public purse and get a vote.

    • Richard Head says:


      Thank you for sharing your consciousness.

      I was pretty sure I understood your points with the exception of your final sentence/paragraph.

      It is always difficult addressing comments from a former, or active, member of the military, but here I go:

      Were you drafted into service? If so, then you indeed involuntarily risked life and limb to protect our country, and thank you for your service. Your service was a sacrifice because you lost an opportunity to do something else instead of serve; however, if you voluntarily enlisted into the service, did you not make a conscious choice to derive a paycheck from the public treasury? Assuming you voluntarily served and were duly compensated for your service, then I believe that, during the time you were active duty, you should not have had the right to vote. Post-service, and assuming you are not collecting a military pension, then you should have the right to vote.

      I realize this is potentially a "third-rail" discussion, but it is a discussion that must be had, given the precarious state of the Federal Government's Gross Federal Debt ($20 trillion) and the even-more-precarious state of the unfunded accrued liabilities associated with Social Security, military pensions, etc. ($75-$150 trillion, depending upon who you ask).

      From my perspective, "No work, no pay" was one of the principles upon which the United States of America was founded.

      Thank you again for sharing your consciousness, Roger; and thank you for your service, regardless of whether it was involuntary or voluntary, sir.


      D.I.C.K. http://www.politicalfolks.com/

      • Charles Hair IV says:

        Dear D.I.C.K., I find your logic fascinating. See if you can hold court long enough to keep my interest addressing my particular situation. Is it OK to keep voting while drawing my Roth IRA proceeds and not paying tax on the distributions? I do draw a small SS payment but do pay taxes on that. I also pay regular income tax on all of my oil and gas royalties and real estate holdings. I do have Medicare but had no choice in the matter. I have purchased and maintain a private Medigap supplement policy paid for with my taxed and non taxed proceeds. My local real property and Federal income taxes far exceed (about triple) the amount realized from SS & Medicare. Oh, there is also a pension inherited from my deceased wife that I also pay taxes on but she was a High School principal so I guess she qualified as a "useless mouth". I am also a veteran, a regular army vet at that. One of your mercenary volunteers. I enlisted out of college when the Berlin wall went up. Misdirected patriotism or a desire to follow my father, a WWII Pacific Marine. I was in Europe with the V Corps AMU right in the Fulda Gap during the Cuban missile dust up. Scary but not fatal. Got out and went back to college and proceeded to vote when I reached 21. Was that OK? I am a mess emotionally trying to decide whether or not to tear up my voter registration and retire to a government run rest home or continue on my convoluted path of not paying taxes, paying taxes voting and feeling bad about it… D.I.C.K., I await your comments with bated breath and will surely give the consideration they obviously deserve.

        • Richard Head says:

          Dear Charles:

          Thank you for sharing your consciousness and for your kind words regarding my logic, although I am sorry to read that you are an emotional mess.

          For purposes of full disclosure, the individual who deserves the most credit for helping me become, in my own mind, philosophically (including logically) correct is Ayn Rand. I have spent several years reading her literary works of art and studying her philosophy of Objectivism. The best formulation of what would be an ideal political platform for those of us who are Objectivists is here: http://www.theamericancapitalistparty.com/index.h…. I have done what Ayn Rand had asked everyone to do: hear/read her out, and then determine if you agree with her philosophy. You can learn more about Ayn Rand here: https://www.aynrand.org/.

          If you take the time to review the above links, I am hopeful you will be able to answer the questions you raised. You might also want to read Robert Ringer's "Restoring the American Dream" and his other published works–to me, Robert's works of literary art offer practical implementations of Objectivist principles associated with the concepts of: Reality, Reason, Egoism (Rational Self-Interest), and Capitalism.

          In further full disclosure, I receive no financial benefits from either the Ayn Rand Institute or RobertRinger.com. I am simply most grateful that the individuals associated with ARI and Robert, on his own, have chosen to engage the masses by way of intellectually stimulating discussion that I hope paves the way to a restoration of individualism in the United States of America.

          Finally, and most importantly, you do not need my approval for anything you do, Charles–you must ethically and politically approve of yourself and your self. I hope you are enjoying life in liberty and in hot pursuit of happiness through productive achievement, without impacting anyone else's right to do the same.


          D.I.C.K. http://www.politicalfolks.com/

          P.S. What I hope to see, sometime very soon, is a warrior for rational self-interest and capitalism announce his/her candidacy for POTUS 2020.

          P.P.S. RINGER 2020! ?? :-)

      • Roger Roger says:

        Thank you, Richard. I have no issue with your points, which is why I declared my service bias early. Mine was voluntary and without splitting hairs, my only comment in response would be what my last sentence said. It was as you say, a conscious choice but with respect, it was not choosing a paycheck from the public treasury or not. With due respect to Samuel Johnson, I do strongly believe that firefighters and police officers and paramedics and nurses and the military, especially infantry if I may say so without diminishing in any way the contribution of all others, do offer their lives and limbs for less pay and often appalling conditions, which no other public servants and certainly no unionists would tolerate. Anybody who needs a sobering experience can do no better than visit Walter Reed. For mine, that earns the right to a vote as well as drawing a paycheck from the public treasury. Best regards.

        • Richard Head says:


          You are welcome, and thank you yet again for sharing your consciousness.

          At the risk of being fried on the third rail ( :-) ), haven't the firefighters, police officers, paramedics, nurses, and members of the military all voluntarily chosen their occupations? If the answer is "yes," then they viewed their particular service worth more to them than doing something else. Otherwise, anyone who would voluntarily risk life and limb and/or work for poor pay in appalling conditions suffers from a lack of self-esteem, correct? Or is it something else?

          While there might be some self-esteem issues, I believe the answer is "something else," at least with regard to firefighters, police officers, paramedics, and career-military-service members. That something else is the risk these individuals take for the reward of a "pay-for-no-work" scheme called a "pension"–in particular, a publicly funded pension. How is it that an individual who is a firefighter, a police officer, a paramedic, or a career-military-service member has the right to force anyone to pay their pension benefits (with guaranteed cost-of-living adjustments) when they retire after 20 years of "service" and, in some cases, move on to a private-sector job where the employer receives a substantive tax credit for hiring him/her?

          The fundamental problem here is that any pay-for-no-work scheme (and Work Opportunity Tax Credits available to employers who hire one or more categories of the aforementioned individuals) negatively impacts the free market–quite frankly, it contorts the living daylights out of the free market and causes many of The FOLKS to become irrational and, consequently, altruists and socialists.

          Feeling the potential fry here, Roger; but, to me, the reward for advocating for #RealityReasonEgoismCapitalism under the banner of Individualism far outweighs the risk.

          Thank you for reading my reply, Roger.


          D.I.C.K. http://www.politicalfolks.com/

          P.S. I have no doubt that a visit to Walter Reed is a sobering experience, but it is a play on emotions. Regarding disabled veterans, hopefully they weighed the risk/reward of military service, including a cost/benefit analysis with regard to disability compensation. The complications from our unconstitutional (with regard to the instances where Congress has failed to declare war–all of them, since World War II?) military engagements is one for another day.

  13. Jean says:

    Excellent post, Robert. It would seem that Barack H Obama's ACA statute that allows 25-yuear-olds to remain dependents for insurance purposes cements that idea. A 25-year-old (and under) is incapable of rational thought, and MUST depend on the wisdom and maturity of his / her elders.

    • Richard Lee Van Der says:

      If I had looked to "elders" I've known for "wisdom and maturity" I would not have come to much! Seems to me only a minority, a small one, actively works at personal evolution.

      • Jean says:

        I was being somewhat facetious when I talked about 25 year olds needing to be dependent. When I was 25, I had already started building an investment portfolio, negotiated a mortgage and purchased a fixer-upper home and worked three jobs (one full time, two part time) to cash flow the repairs. My parents tried to push me toward finding a nice husband (yeah, right) and settling down. As for actively working at personal evolution, it seems that most people turn their brains off after leaving formal education. It's easier to be distracted by sports, entertainment and pop culture.

  14. Rocketman says:

    It's NOT a coincidence that the left started FIRST by taking over the education system in this country. They knew that molding the impressible brains of future voters was the way long term to take control of the country.

  15. Rick G says:

    ……….and people wonder why the country is in the mess it is in and always will be in. Most millennals, as well as older adults who still play with rattles, most of whose brains have not fully matured and developed, and probably never will, are low-information scatter-brains who cannot think rationally enough to make intelligent choices on who the leaders in this country should be. They choose their voting preferences based on the candidate's looks, personal appearance, demeanor, one or two issues they haven't really thought rationally about, a comment by a candidate that strikes their fancy or turns them off, the candidate's party affiliation, race, religion, geographic location where they are from………. In other words, most Americans are NOT qualified to vote regardless of age.

  16. CaliConservative says:

    I believe that you can improve our system of elections by only letting people who have filed tax returns vote in elections. This would eliminate the lazy people who don't bother to work, will eliminate having dead people and illegal aliens from voting, and make people prove that they can at least file a tax return in exchange for the right to vote. For those who think this discriminates against those who get public assistance I did not say they had to be taxpayers…..they just had to file a return. Perhaps this small step will enable us to clean up the voter rolls a bit and make the system a bit more fair to those who follow the rules

  17. Jim Hallett says:

    The article was brilliant, and I especially loved the quote from Voltaire, which I had not heard before. It should be required reading for the unhinged Antifa crowd and many others. It may indeed be a pipedream to raise the voting age to 25, but it sure makes lots of sense. Dumbocrats would have a hemorrhage because that would wipe out a huge % of their vote totals, so they would likely have to recruit more from the graveyard and illegal alien groups to make up the difference. The swamp (aka DC politics) has grown so egregious, so immoral, and so overstepping their bounds that I am very pessimistic that any rational good thing can emanate from that toxic place.

  18. Ivan says:

    What a strange phenomena that the 18 year college kids more likely voted for BHO, while the red neck types and young job holders at 18 years old from the south and midwest voted for Trump. Seems like it was a wash on their votes to help out Trump.

  19. sam239 says:

    Thanks for sharing the wisdom and maturity, Robert Ringer, I listened to your Path to Power teleseminar on the way to the cafe this morning. That and the others in your July 4th special gave instantly actionable information that quickly paid for itself. Pure Gold!

    I see what you are saying perfectly clear – I'm 31 now and sometimes hang around younger people, like 20-21. Their brains are not fully mature and it is apparent by interacting with them. It is more than lack of life experience, though getting "mugged by reality" seems to help people mature as well.

    I wonder if people in their 50's and 60's look at me or others of my age the same way, like there is something obviously innocently naive about us that we aren't capable of being aware of. ..

  20. Steve V. says:

    Add to the study the fact that kids today are a LOT dumber than they were 50 years ago.

  21. Ron Ryan says:

    My dermatologist spoke shocking words to me over twenty years ago. He said, "A person who doesn't own property should not be allowed to vote." I agree today, although I was shocked at his words then. Those who can vote: Any person who owns property and pays taxes on it; any person who is gainfully employed and pays income/social security taxes; anyone who serves in the military or police forces.

    If a person owns nothing, has not worked and paid taxes, or has never served this country, why should they ever be allowed to vote? Too tough? Okay, 25 years of age then. A hundred-dollar bill is not what it use to be and neither is a young person age 18.

  22. Jim Plouffe says:

    Where is the grassroots organization to start the repeal? I'll join and support it.

  23. Allison says:

    Robert, I try to read your postings with a degree of objectivity. I am much older than 30 and I think my scientific education taught me a lot about how to think and it was a lot of hard work. You appear to be a very political person and have fallen victim to misinformation too. You may think global warming is a hoax, but have you at all bothered to read any scientific journals? Do you have any idea about how global temperatures are read and how the data is gathered? Have you studied anything related to statistics or know anything about how scientific data is handled? It is so easy to believe misinformation if you have yourself wrapped up in today's emotional politics.

    Also, all 7 species of sea turtle are now endangered and a few are critically endangered. They've been on this planet for at least 100 million years. Human population growth and our activities are driving them into extinction.