A young life sacrificed to political correctness

16-year-old Clarisse Grime

I realize that whenever someone dies, particularly someone young, there is often a rush to engage in a little hyperbole about the departed. It seems that when we pass on, we're all "great people" who were "always kind" and "wonderful to be around."

Even accounting for those kinds of excesses, it seems that there was quite a bit to like about young Clarisse Grime, the 16-year-old junior-to-be at St. Paul Harding High School, whose life was snuffed out Thursday when a driver - and we'll get to him in a moment - lost control of his car and ran her over as she sat with her boyfriend, waiting for a bus.

Clarisse had apparently survived quite a bit to make it to St. Paul. She was born in Ethiopia, a place where nearly 20% of children don't make it to age five. That's where she learned to speak Amharic, and when her family got out of Ethiopia and moved to Italy, she picked up Italian. In the U.S. for nearly three years, English was her third language, and she was fluent enough to become an honor roll student at Harding.

"I could see her as Secretary of State or, who knows, she could have run for Governor," a Harding teacher told the St. Paul Pioneer Press.

Clarisse was attending summer school and after Thursday classes, she and her boyfriend of two years were sitting near the football field, waiting for a Metro bus, when her tragic destiny came calling.

It came in the form of a 2001 Ford Expedition, driven by one Carlos Viveros-Colorado, a 50-year-old man who, according to witnesses, was speeding and lost control of the car. It crossed the street, ran over a sign, ran over a fire hydrant and hurtled towards the young couple, who tried to get out of the way. Clarisse's boyfriend was hit and injured his hip, while she was struck and died with minutes, all the promise of her life erased in not much more than the blink of an eye.

The one person left uninjured was Viveros-Colorado, who was quickly taken into custody, and there's a story to his life as well. That story includes:

•   Entering the United States illegally more than a decade ago;
•   Being convicted of drunk driving in 2001
•   Never obtaining a Minnesota drivers license
•   Receiving a series of speeding tickets
•   Being convicted and fined $100 this past April for driving without a license
•   Using a false name and stolen Social Security number to maintain his employment

All of which begs the question, "What was he DOING here?" How do you spend more than a decade in this country without gaining citizenship, have multiple run-ins with the law, illegally obtain a job while 13 million American citizens are looking for work and NOT get thrown out of the country?

Because when it comes to illegal immigration, your government has stopped bothering to protect you, bowing instead to political correctness and the alleged value of "diversity."

We're not immune from the problem here in Minnesota, but in border states like Arizona and California, it's even worse. California professor Victor Davis Hanson has written often and eloquently about the problem (click here for one example) of illegal immigration, and this basic summary of his will ring quite true to most rational people:


"The simple fact is that once someone chooses to enter the U.S. illegally and remain here illegally, breaking the law, either deliberately or through indifference, becomes easier and habitual: obtaining false IDs, avoiding normal bureaucratic requirements, violating zoning laws, etc. And when the host, whether federal, state, or local government, sends a message that the issue is now entirely political rather than legal, often the illegal immigrant senses that he is (and should be) generally exempt from the mundane laws that others must follow."

That's exactly the Viveros-Colorado story. The U.S. government, the State of Minnesota and the City of St. Paul sent him signals every step of the way that said, "We don't really care if you're breaking the law because you're a member of a politically protected minority, so do what you want." Minneapolis and St. Paul are proud to call themselves "sanctuary cities," where law enforcement personnel are told NOT TO NOTIFY the federal government or cooperate with the feds when they find illegal aliens living in the city.

We devote more government resources to making sure Grandma doesn't carry 5 ounces of shampoo on to an airplane than we do to arresting and deporting people like Viveros-Colorado. That's why Obama's uncle Onyango felt comfortable living and working illegally in Massachusetts for a couple of decades before his DWI conviction earlier this year. And did that conviction get him deported? No. In fact, just weeks after the conviction, Massachusetts gave him his license back (click here for details) so that it wouldn't be inconvenient for him to get to work.

In 2008, after an illegal immigrant drove into a school bus and killed four children near Cottonwood, Minn., then-Gov. Pawlenty offered a series of proposals that would have made it easier to identify and deport illegal aliens. But the DFL-controlled legislature never acted. Even today, if it were up to DFLers like Gov. Dayton and Secretary of State Mark Ritchie, Vivero-Colorado wouldn't even have to produce an ID to vote. Why should he have any respect for the laws of this country?

One final irony. Little Clarisse had already learned three languages and spoke English after just 2-1/2 years in the U.S. But when Viveros-Colorado was arrested Thursday, he needed an interpreter to talk to police.

Clarisse's family doesn't have the money for her funeral. Contributions to the Clarisse Grime fund can be made at any Wells Fargo bank branch.

The rays of ravishing light and glory....

Every 4th of July, I'm drawn again to John Adams. While all of the men who signed the Declaration of Independence deserve our eternal gratitude, Adams earned a slightly larger portion.

It was Adams who pushed for the resolution on independence, Adams who convinced Jefferson to write it and Adams who pushed and prodded and advocated for independence so strongly and eloquently. He suggested the forming of the Continental Army, and pushed for George Washington to be named commander.

And when the work was over, and the Declaration was written, approved and published, Adams looked at what had been done, and the inevitable war that lay ahead, and wrote:


I am well aware of the Toil and Blood and Treasure, that it will cost Us to maintain this Declaration, and support and defend these States. Yet through all the Gloom I can see the Rays of ravishing Light and Glory. I can see that the End is more than worth all the Means. And that Posterity will tryumph in that Days Transaction, even altho We should rue it, which I trust in God We shall not.

He never did rue it, the end was worth all the means and we all live free today because of his vision. Enjoy your parades, picnics, family times and fireworks today, America, and take a moment to remember the men at Philadelphia that made it all possible.

(The best telling of Adams' remarkable life is found in David McCullough's book, John Adams, which was later made into an  HBO miniseries. Through a fortuitous connection, I am able to have a first edition of the book, inscribed to me by McCullough, in my bookcase. Needless to say, it's one of my most prized possessions.)

Bonus story: I had the privilege once, on a trip to Boston, to get down to Quincy and visit the church where John and his equally remarkable wife, Abigail, are buried next to their son, John Quincy Adams, and his wife, Louisa. The church is still in operation, and while it is open for tourists Memorial Day to Labor Day, I was there in October and the sign on the door said "Closed." However, I knocked on the church door, and when the church secretary answered, I begged my way into a quick tour.

She took me downstairs, then down a hallway and through a narrow door into the crypt, where John's and Abigail's tombs look like this:

After standing over John's resting place for a few moments - and not wanting to impose any more on this kind woman's time - I began to walk out. "No," she said. "You have to say something to Abigail." She explained that "Abigail gets cross" if she doesn't receive adequate attention, and that the church will find books tossed on the floor, windows left open and other supernatural occurrences when Abigail felt snubbed. I don't know if she really believed it, or it was just a fun tale to tell a rube from Minnesota, but she seemed quite sincere about it. So I said a couple of complimentary things, and we headed out. If you're ever in Boston in the summer, I highly recommend the jaunt down to Quincy where you can also see Adams' home.

She's learning...

As I've mentioned in previous posts (click here and here and here) the Fourth of July is my holiday. As a youngster I fell in love with the fireworks, and when I grew and came to understand what the day was all about, it became my favorite holiday.

My kids were never big fireworks fans like me, but they learned to indulge ol' dad on the Fourth. So my next challenge is the grandkids, and I had a chance to begin the indoctrination Saturday night when we went over to Menomonie for a great evening with my son Will's in-laws, Steve and Kelly Redmann. They live on a nice spread outside of Menomonie where they keep a few horses and - for the past four or five years - they've been having family and friends over around the Fourth for a cookout and some big-time fireworks that Steve puts together.

Thanks to last August's wedding, we're now family, so this year we got our first invite, and it was a treat. About 40 or so people were there, Steve did a masterful job of grilling and when the sun set behind the pines, it was time for fireworks.

(To digress for a moment: In Wisconsin you are allowed to buy real fireworks. A shell that you can put in a tube, light a long fuse and then watch a high launch followed by a big explosion and bright colors. In Minnesota, you're only allowed by tiny firecrackers and sparklers. This year the Legislature voted to allow bigger and better fireworks in Minnesota, but our afraid-of-his-shadow Governor vetoed the bill, which means the jobs, tax revenue and fun generated by the fireworks industry will continue to stay out of our state. Nice work, Guv.)

Come fireworks time, my choices were limited. Seven-week-old C-Jack, of course, is not ready for the show, and grandson Sambo has decided it's too much noise and still too scary, so he wanted to stay in the house.

Annie, however - The Smartest Little Girl in the Universe - decided to set aside her fears and go outside with Opa. So we found a nice lawn chair and settled back for the show. 

The noise of the first shell startled her, but then she saw the colors and decided it wasn't too bad. She still didn't like the noise, but that got a little easier to take when Kelly kindly brought out a pair of ear protectors for her. Annie settled back in my lap and started to enjoy it a bit more. Still a little scary, still a little too noisy, but she was willing to hang in there, so I decided it was time to mix in a little instruction.

"Do you know why we shoot off fireworks?" I asked her.

"Because it's the Fourth of July," she answered. I asked her what was special about the Fourth of July, and she said she didn't know.

"It's America's birthday," I explained. "The Fourth of July is when America became a country, and we celebrate by shooting off fireworks."

"Oh."

Pretty basic stuff, and I wasn't sure that her four-year-old mind really grasped it, but I felt like that was enough for one night. She still didn't like the noise, but she began offering a little applause after each shell went off.

A while later, when the show was over and it was time to head home, we loaded up in the car and began the ride back to Red Wing. Traveling down the highway, we suddenly saw the lights from another fireworks display off on the horizon, illuminating the sky above some treetops a couple miles away.

"See those fireworks?" she asked everyone in the car. "That's where America is!"

Close enough for a four-year-old, and up in the front seat, Opa choked up just a little bit. There will be time later for John Adams and Philadelphia and Jefferson and John Hancock and King George and self-evident truths and our sacred honor, but I think we've got the first building block in place.

Reflections on the SCOTUS decision

Most conservatives are disappointed with today's Supreme Court ruling on Obamacare. But a couple hours of reflection have given me a different outlook, and I see a real silver lining in what appears to be a dark cloud.

The timing of the decision - just 20 weeks before a national election - and the high profile of the health care issue itself now create an simple, understandable framework for November.

With this decision, the campaign is no longer about Bain Capital, Solyndra, Eric Holder's criminal behavior, where the Romney family's dog rode on vacation or what commies Obama hung out with in Chicago. It's about Obamacare, and every voter can now look directly at two dramatically different choices:

A) Do you want a larger, more intrusive government that will take control of one of the most intimate decisions of your life, i.e. your health care? Do you want to be taxed at a much higher rate, with ever-increasing deficits? Or,

B) Do you want a President and Congress dedicated to repealing Obamacare and all of the corresponding bureaucracy, leaving the major driver of the health care industry to be the free market?

It's really that simple, and I welcome the opportunity to do battle in the marketplace of ideas. I was never totally sold on the idea of the Supreme Court striking down Obamacare, because it seemed too much like a tactic of the left. For nearly a century, the lefties have been taking their policy defeats and turning them into court cases. Abortion and gay marriage are two of the most flagrant examples of the left using unelected, unaccountable judges to win policy debates that they could never win with the general public.

I'd much rather win in the court of public opinion, and that's the opportunity in front of us this fall. If you want Obamacare, then you re-elect Obama, Amy Klobuchar and congressional buffoons like Keith Ellison.

If you want it repealed, then you have to vote for Romney, Kurt Bills and - in my district - John Kline.

There are similar examples in Minnesota's proposed constitutional amendments on Voter ID and gay marriage. Regardless of how you feel on those issues, it's kind of refreshing to have a chance to vote directly on them. I never understood why the gay marriage folks were so opposed to having the vote, since they seem so confident of winning. If you think more than 50% of Minnesotans support your position, why wouldn't you want to give those people a chance to express that opinion?

Candidates like to frame every election as "a choice between two dramatically different visions" or some such cliche, but it's rarely true. This November, the choice actually IS quite clear.

Do you want Obamacare, or do you want it repealed?

The choice is yours, American people, and I'm more than happy to live with your decision.

History repeating itself?

Life most folks, I have a lot of days I look back on fondly. Weddings, children's and grandchildren's births, the Twins' World Series wins, every Vancouver Canucks playoff loss, etc. But near the top of any list would have to be November 4, 1980.

That was the day we got rid of Jimmy Carter.

In 1976, I voted for the first time, and was proud to cast my first vote for a fellow Michigan guy, Gerald Ford. That election didn't go my way, however, and the United States entered a dark, dark period known as the Carter presidency.

It's hard to explain to younger folks how horrible Jan. 20, 1977-Jan. 20 1981 was. The economy became a shipwreck, with rampant inflation, high unemployment and sky-high interest rates. Mortgage rates in the Carter years topped out at 12.9%, and the Prime Rate on April 2, 1980 hit 20%, with unemployment running over 7.0%.

And Carter didn't just make mincemeat of the economy. His foreign policy was driven by the core belief that America had done a lot of wrong in the world that we needed to apologize for. Carter believed we had to show more respect for the Communists who ran the Soviet Union, and learn to co-exist with them. He felt we needed to appease our enemies, and he applauded when Iranians overthrew the pro-United States shah, and turned the country over to the Ayatollah Khomeini. Most damning of all was his fervent belief that the key to peace and stability in the Middle East was befriending Yasir Arafat.

(Carter LOVED Arafat. The fact that Arafat was an absolute monster, a bloodthirsty killer, terrorist and criminal meant nothing to ol' Jimmy, who tried to hand Israel over to Arafat and his forces. Less than four years ago, Carter laid a wreath at the tomb of the man he called "a powerful human symbol and forceful advocate." Well, yes, when you can order the launch of missiles and rockets into civilian neighborhoods, killing innocent women and children, I guess you are a "forceful advocate.")

But I digress. His embrace of Arafat and his intense dislike of Israel were among Carter's most - but not only - dislikable features.

What matters is that we un-elected the peanut farmer the first chance we got. On November 4, 1980, his failed presidency was relegated to the ash heap of history when Ronald Reagan carried 44 states and won 489 electoral votes (numbers that he would exceed four years later.)

That election night was one glorious evening. For most of 1980, I had been working for my college newspaper, the University of Minnesota's Minnesota Daily, but by September I had landed my first real-world job, at the daily newspaper in Red Wing. It was still a liberal newsroom, although not as hopeless as that of the Daily, since nothing is more insufferable than the ignorant liberalism of college kids who think they are wise.


Reagan's victory was so complete that the networks called the election by 8:15 Eastern time, and Carter conceded at 9:50 EST, when the polls were still open in the Western time zone, possibly keeping Democrat voters home and contributing to the Republican takeover of the Senate. (Carter was so inept he couldn't even lose properly.) I don't remember if I did a happy dance around the newsroom, but I might well have. 


That's when "Morning in America" began. There was work to do, certainly: An economy to repair, American hostages to be freed, an aggressive Soviet Union to confront, but there seemed little doubt that the United States had turned a corner and headed back down the right road.


So what brings back those joyous memories of Nov. 4, 1980? An incredible deja vu-like feeling that we're headed that way again, with so many of the same pieces in place: A bumbling, incompetent president who seems somewhat ashamed of his country. The certainty that other nations have lost respect for us. Feeble attacks on the Republican nominee as "too right-wing." An economy in shambles and a government that has become too big and intrusive.


In June of 1980, the Reagan victory did NOT seem inevitable. Polls showed Carter ahead, and that lead would hold into October. In fact, polls the weekend before the election still showed it a neck-and-neck race, when the American people were deciding differently.


I realize it's a long time from June to November, and political prognostication is a dangerous game to play, but on Saturday someone asked me if Romney had a chance to win. And I just blurted out, "I think he's going to carry 40 states. It won't even be close." And I said it, in large part, because the parallels to 1980 seem so clearly apparent. Here's hoping I'm right.

Klobuchar, Franken vote to limit wages, dreams

One of the most fundamental parts of the American Dream is that if you work hard and demonstrate initiative, there are no limits on what you can achieve. That vision drove pioneers to risk their lives settling the country, gave young men and women the inspiration to own a piece of land and begin farming it and drove countless entrepreneurs to start a businesses and create jobs.

I doubt that many, if any, of those people pursued their dream with the idea that, "I want to succeed some, but not too much."

But Minnesota senators Amy Klobuchar and Al Franken joined several dozens of their colleagues in voting to say that yes, government needs to put limits on how much you succeed.

The occasion was an amendment offered by Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), a rising star in national politics with a fascinating background. His parents escaped Cuba and raised a family in south Florida as they watched Castro and his thugs enslave their country. The Rubio children were raised to appreciate the freedoms and opportunities available to them as Americans.

Rubio's amendment - known as the RAISE bill - would have put an end to one of the most peculiar features of American labor unions, which is their desire to LIMIT how much their members can earn.

Most people think of a union as something that attempts to help its members, but in many cases the unions work hard to prevent workers from realizing their full earning potential. About 80% of union contracts not only set a minimum wage, but a maximum wage as well. That prevents employers from rewarding workers who are more productive then their peers.

The precedent dates back to a 1967 case in which a construction company that was paying its union works $17 an hour offered to give everyone a raise to $18.50 per hour if certain performance goals were met. The union protested and the National Labor Relations Board ordered the company to rescind the offer.

Likewise, a New York hospital began offering small tokens of appreciation - $100 gift cards - to its best nurses. Again, the union protested and the NLRB ordered the practice stopped. Imagine that: A union collecting dues from you, in order to limit how much you can make.

I can't imagine why I - or anyone - would want to belong to an organization that put a cap on my earning potential, and Rubio's bill would have put an end to a union practice that seems to be the very antithesis of the American Dream.

But when the RAISE Act came to the floor, there were Klobuchar and Franken - taking orders from the union bosses who help fund their campaigns - voting to squash the dreams and aspirations of workers. The RAISE act went down, 45-54.

The union's perspective, of course, is that it is better off in an environment of enforced mediocrity, rather than one of sustained excellence. If workers found out that they can earn more by doing a little more than the bare minimum job requirements, that they can succeed on their own merits, they might decide they don't need to give their money to a union.

Doing the bare minimum is not the way for American workers to compete in an ever-challenging global economy, though "mediocre" does seems to aptly describe the job Franken and Klobuchar are doing as senators.

Too hard for one man? No, just for THIS man.

One of the advantages of getting older is that when certain fashionable ideas come around, you're able to recognize them from their last appearance.

I pointed this out in a post back in 2009, when the nation suddenly got concerned about swine flu. Being old, I was able to point out that I had lived through a swine flu scare decades before, and like the 21st-century version, it also turned out to be nothing.

Yesterday history repeated itself on the pages of the Washington Post, where Obama apologist Chris Cillizza asked the question, "Is it possible for a president — any president — to succeed in the modern world of politics?" You can read the entire piece here. 


Cillizza's assertion is that the job of POTUS has become so big and challenging, and the level of media scrutiny so high, that the poor fellow in the Oval Office has little or no chance to succeed. Poor Obama, Cillizza seems to be saying, is the victim of a media environment and demands of the office that just make it impossible for him to succeed.

Even an aging, senility-approaching codger like me recognizes a weak argument that has been used before. That last time the Presidency had become "too big for one man," it was 1980, and it was the old peanut farmer himself, Jimmy Carter, who was in over his head.

"Watching President Carter try to juggle all the contradictory foreign and domestic problems of the nation during a presidential election and an economic recession, you have to wonder who can do it and who can govern America," wrote James Reston in the New York Times.

Reston's colleague at the paper, Tom Wicker, agreed that the job was just too hard. "In the same years when presidential politics changed so greatly, governing did, too. It got harder. The rise of single-interest politics and independent legislators has made it more difficult to put together a governing coalition; sophisticated new lobbying techniques wielded on behalf of virtually every interest group further complicate the task."

Henry Graff, a history professor at Columbia, also used the pages of the Times to argue that being the leader of the free world was too tough a gig for anyone. "The Presidency today is entangled in the great crisis of all established authority," he wrote. The President "is under such relentless scrutiny that he can only seem ordinary, never extraordinary." 

Over at the Washington Post, Walter Shapiro penned a real beauty, saying, "Some voters have entirely discarded textbook notions about presidential greatness and believe that Carter is doing as good a job as anyone could."

The only thing Reston, Wicker, Graff and Shaprio were right about was that the Presidency was too challenging for Jimmy Carter. Turns out other people were up to the task. Fortunately the American public recognized that President Malaise was in over his head, and they turned him out of office the very first chance they got, in November of 1980.

They put Ronald Reagan in the White House, and eight years later no one was asking if the presidency was too big for one man to handle.

It turns out that it takes a particularly small man to make the office look overwhelming, and for the second time in 32 years, we've found one.


http://timdroogsma.brandyourself.com/