The latest left-wing "feel good" initiative is to lower the voting age to 16.  Currently, the voting age set at 18 per the 26th Amendment (1971).

Lowering the voting age, like wanting to eliminate the electoral college, is an aftereffect of Hillary Clinton's defeat in 2016.  The Democrats will do everything conceivable to change the rules of the game to see that something like that never happens again.  They reason: "Just who does America think she is that she can escape our planned march to Utopia?"  This voting age drive also dovetails with the orchestrated student demonstrations from the Parkland shooting this past Valentine's Day.  Like loose immigration policies, 16-year-old voting is designed to permanently tilt the playing field to the advantage of Democrats. 

This is going in the wrong direction, at least if sound government is the objective.  A better case can be made for raising the age to vote to 21, where it previously was.  This is justified in this day and age of arrested development of the younger generation. 

Many in their mid-20s still live with and are supported by their parents.  And Obamacare made sure to allow young adults to stay on Daddy's and Mommy's health insurance policies as dependents up to the age of 26.  That's even if the young adult is married or not living at home or not financially dependent on his parents.  Next, consider how many of the know-it-all college kids aren't smart enough to realize that a student loan actually has to be paid back with interest and that decent-paying jobs are as scarce as hen's teeth for those with expensive degrees in fluff.  It would be laughable, if it weren't so pathetic, how many of today's youth need "safe zones" where their snowflake-like inner selves won't be disturbed by hearing a politically incorrect opinion.

The New York Times says lowering the voting age will increase citizen participation in elections.  So what?  Following that logic, the Washington Post, citing data from Denmark, writes that when young people in a household vote, their parents tend to vote also.  The thrust here is that the more people showing up to vote, the better.  To liberals, it is irrelevant that many voters are clueless about the issues.  It's all about quantity over quality – especially if the quantity is easily persuadable by the propaganda the mainstream media and Hollywood celebrities spew out. 

Then there's The Nation.  This ultra-leftist magazine reasons that "[y]oung people who are smart enough and engaged enough to shape the debate about gun violence are smart enough and engaged enough to vote."  But of course, if the teenagers were currently out in the streets protesting things like illegal immigration, the Nation would be pointing out that the kiddies are not ready to vote.  

And where would any effort to degrade America be without the presence of George Soros and his Open Society Foundation?  The surprise is that here, Soros is a "conservative"; he wants to lower the voting age merely to 17.  This is all part of Soros's stated objective to increase voting rolls by 10 million before 2018 is out.  He's aiming at the youth, convicted felons, blacks, and immigrants of any legal status. 

Democrats like Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey think a lower voting age is a swell idea.  And why not?  The more the voting base is dumbed down, the better it is for Democrats. 

The odds for lowering the voting age are long. The whole controversy, however, shows the length the Democrats will go to obtain power.  

We need to recall Isaiah 3:4-5: "And I will make boys their princes, and babes shall rule over them.  The people will be oppressed, everyone by another and everyone by a neighbor; and the youth will be insolent to the elder, and the base to the honorable."