Mentally Incapacitated? Get Someone To Vote For You

This is something that is so bizarre only a liberal would think of it. A reader of the liberal rag known as the New York Times decided they needed some advice concerning a mentally incapacitated relative’s ability to vote. First of all, the fact that they are mentally incapacitated should have been a big hint for this so-called “concerned” relative that they should not vote.

Still, after further consideration, I realized this was basically a “blind leading the blind situation.” Here we had a mentally and morally deficient liberal calling on behalf of one that was medically deficient mentally.

Common sense, if they had any, would have dictated that they call their local Supervisor of Elections or some other local entity familiar with state voting laws. Instead, they wrote to that bastion of sage advice the Times, which, if it came on a roll, would be more appropriate.

Anyway, the way this played out should tell you all you need to know about how the liberal mind works.

A reader wrote to the Times, stating that their grandmother has "advanced" Alzheimer’s and hearing loss. The reader asked whether it would be "unethical" to assist the elderly woman in voting in November, possibly by having the grandma go through "the mechanics of voting" while family members provide guidance.

This simpleton is actually trying to pretend that they give a damn about a 97-year-old grandmother with advanced Alzheimer’s who can’t hear voting rights. Then, they told the Times how they handled her absentee ballot situation in 2020.

“She held the pen while we did our best to explain each office and issue. If there was any confusion, we would tell her how we voted, and she would do the same,” the reader wrote. “Is it unethical to help her vote again this November?”

The dolt then went on to explain that Grandma’s “cognition was in decline four years ago, but it was not as degraded as it is now.”

“I foresee things playing out similarly to the last general election, in which she performs the mechanics of voting while we advise her. Before her illness, we were familiar enough with her political opinions to be reasonably confident about whom and what she would vote for. But I’m also conscious of the fact that the line between assistance and coercion is blurred in this situation.”

Apparently, he's not conscious enough, but don’t worry—the Times “Ethicist” Columnist Kwame Anthony Appiah will clear things up for him.

“If your grandmother is still able to check the boxes and sign the ballot as an expression of her choices, she’s just doing what anybody else does. Under those circumstances, she’s entitled to vote with your assistance. If she doesn’t understand what she’s doing, though, she isn’t really voting; voting is the expression of a political choice, and it would be wrong to record a vote that didn’t reflect her actual choices.”

Then, Appiah couldn’t control his liberal tendencies and reverted to his unethical ways. When the matter is unclear, he advised the reader to:

“Err on the side of helping someone to vote.” Claiming it is of high importance to “civic participation.”

Yes, civic participation is essential, but so is understanding who and what you are voting for.

Like all leftists, Appiah then attempted to justify his position with this lame excuse.

“Various states exclude citizens from voting when they are under guardianship or have been judged to be incompetent, but it won’t do to shut out people with mild cognitive impairments. For your grandmother, as for so many people around the world, the simple act of voting may have greater significance than whatever choices it conveys.”

New York state law classifies anyone who “votes or offers or attempts to vote at an election under any other name than his own” and anyone who “aids in doing or attempting to do a fraudulent act in connection with an early mail or absentee vote cast or attempted to be cast,” as a perpetrator of “illegal voting.”

New York law also bars those “adjudged incompetent by order of a court of competent judicial authority” from registering to vote.

In the 2020 presidential election, the Wisconsin Elections Commission was accused of breaking state law by allowing Racine County nursing home staff to assist residents with severe memory issues in filling out their ballots.

An investigation uncovered that employees at a nursing home would ask residents about their past voting preferences and then cast votes based on that information. The Racine County Sheriff Christopher Schmaling stated that members of the Wisconsin Elections Commission not only broke but shattered an election statute.

The very idea that an “Ethicist” Columnist would suggest that a 97-year-old with advanced Alzheimer’s, who can’t hear, should be considered a competent voter is disgusting. This has liberal voting maleficence written all over it in neon sign flashing letters.

Even more disgusting is the relative who is using their grandmother in an attempt to manipulate an election. This is a perfect example that shows the left’s disregard not only for the law but also their disrespect for moral decency.

It has never been more apparent that this election is all about values vs power and intimidation. Democrats will exploit and destroy anyone and anything to remain in control so they can ruin Western civilization as we know it.

November 5^th is more than an election. It’s not only judgment day for America. It’s a statement about the future of worldwide civilization.

Milt spent thirty years as a sales and operations manager for an international manufacturing company. He is also a four-time published author on a variety of subjects. Now, he spends most of his time researching and writing about conservative politics and liberal folly.