Obama and His Administration Have a Deeply Troubling Attitude Toward the Mentally Disabled and the Elderly

In the anxious days before the 2008 election (I actually thought McCain was going to win, sat up that night and watched the returns, heard with dread the joyful screams of victory in the streets, the next day I had to take a Valium [well, a quarter of one]), I read reports of mentally disabled voters in Georgia and California and dementia patients in Iowa coerced into voting for Obama by his followers.

The father of one of the men who was coerced remarked, “What kind of people would do this to somebody like that?” The answer is bad, dangerous people.

Then Obama on the Tonight Show disparages his bowling skills with the comment that “It’s like the Special Olympics.” This was a really brutal, ghetto remark, and me personally I saw the influence of his wife in it. Albeit ghetto, however, his wife is respectable and from a respectable family. Compare and contrast in this wedding photo, the bride’s and bridegroom’s mothers. Her mother looks classy, Michelle looks as good as she can, Obama’s mother looks fat and low-class, and Obama looks super-gay.

I’m keeping an eye on Michelle: I think she could be the canary in the coalmine. Obama is an evil twink. He’s full of hate and rage, he’s not normal, and there’s really nothing holding him to this world. Sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings. The wife on the other hand, while a thug, is normal. She thought she was doing well for herself by marrying a light-skinned, upwardly mobile black man whom many people seem to consider attractive, and she has, but at what price. It seems to me that the wife loves her children and loves her mother. This doesn’t endear her to me, it just makes me think she’s kind of normal. So, if the wife takes her children and her mother and gets out of D.C. very quickly, that will make me think that the evil twink is up to no good. That the wife knows something is coming. End parens. Back to regularly scheduled programming.

So anyway, crass simple-minded wisecrack demeaning the mentally disabled.

Then when Inspector General Gerald Walpin finds that Obama’s crony is stealing taxpayer money, Obama illegally fires him. Turns out the law requires that Obama has a reason for firing him (details, details), so the Obama Administration implies that Walpin, who’s in his 70s, suffers from dementia.

Anyone over the age of like 50 is vulnerable to an accusation of dementia, an allegation, which, much like Obama’s favorite charge of racism, is very easy to allege, leaves a taint, effectively smears, and is very difficult to disprove. It also destabilizes the target who thinks, “Maybe I am senile?”, which is similar to “Maybe I am racist? Maybe I am crazy? Maybe I do have anger issues? Maybe I am too intolerant and unwelcoming of government takeover of my life?”

You could call the federal government for some counseling and some pills. They would be happy to help you work through your shameful independent-thought problems.

Now we have Obama’s health-policy adviser at the Office of Management and Budget and member of Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research (actual title: “Rahm Emanuel’s brother”) who believes “medical care should be reserved for the non-disabled, not given to those ‘who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens . . .’”

There is also the matter of Obama’s new Science Czar who has co-authored a book in which he and his co-authors contemplate forced abortions for population control and state, “If some individuals contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children, and if the need is compelling, they can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility . . .”

Who contributes to general social deterioration?

I do.

When the society is a totalitarian regime, I do. With every fiber of my being. You fucking dogs, trying to destroy my country. Excuse me, back to regularly scheduled programming.

And the small question of Obamacare mandated abortions.

Look, I’m pro-choice because I believe the government should have zero involvement in personal decisions. On the other hand, given the choice between government-mandated abortions and government-mandated restrictions on abortions, I will go with the latter as being somewhat less intrusive into personal freedom (assuming with the latter option that the government isn’t mandating who’s actually sleeping with each other- Boy, this aside has really gotten weird. Am I really having this conversation about the United States in 2009?). To put it succinctly, it is less restrictive of personal freedom for the government to tell women “No, you can’t have an abortion,” than for the government to tell women, “You must have an abortion.”

Put the coercion of mentally disabled voters, the thoughtless cruel disparagement of the mentally disabled (by the so-called Commander-in-Chief, on national television), smearing a whistleblower with implications of senility, the statement by Obama’s top health advisor that “medical care should be reserved for the non-disabled,” and his Science Czar’s published writings on forced abortions for undesirables all together and turn yourself around and what do you get?

Stop me if you think that you’ve heard this one before. Time for another round of “Guess the Repressive Regime,” methinks.