Clear the Bench Colorado - a tea party done right?

I love crass generalizations as much as the next person, but we ought to be wary in making them about the so-called ‘tea party.’

[Because they’ve all got guns! See! I love crass generalizations as much as you do! - Editorial Bear]

It’s easy to lump the whole ‘tea party’ movement in with the nutjobs who scream that Obama is a Kenyan/socialist/Muslim/the Anti-Christ (delete as applicable.)

However, since the movement claims to represent 30% of Americans, such stereotypes ultimately don't stand up to scrutiny.

In fact, when you look past the loudmouths and lunatics in the tea party fringe, even the most liberal-minded of us might be presented with an appalling realization – that some of the stuff the tea party are going on about actually makes sense.

As an example, one of the more pragmatic tea party projects I’ve learned about is the grassroots movement to ‘Clear the Bench Colorado.’

Doing exactly what it says on the tin, Clear the Bench Colorado is a campaign to oust three State Supreme Justices when they come up for reelection in November (in Colorado, Supreme Justices are elected to run 10-year terms, so opportunities like this don’t come around very often.)

The reason being that Clear the Bench Colorado believes these judges - Michael Bender, Alex Martinez and Nancy Rice - have been 'legislating from the bench' for years; undermining democracy in Colorado and exploiting the electorate.

The leader of Clear the Bench Colorado, Matt Arnold, puts forward four examples of rulings in which he believes violate the spirit, if not the letter, of Colorado law.

The first, Mesa County Board of County Commissioners v. State of Colorado, saw the justices side with Mesa County in ‘freezing’ property taxes – effectively linking them directly to climbing house prices. This had the effect of violating one of Colorado’s most celebrated laws; the Taxpayers Bill of Rights (TABOR) which demands that the electorate be allowed to vote on any net tax revenue gain beyond the rate of inflation.

The second ruling, Barber v. Ritter, also saw the justices allow a violation of TABOR, albeit in a different way. They ruled that ‘fees’ were different from ‘taxes’ and not subject to voter approval. As a result, Colorado massively increased a number of ‘fees’ that sounded suspiciously like taxes to me – like the Colorado Car Tax (which sounds exactly, not just suspiciously, like a tax to me!)

The next, Town of Telluride v. San Miguel Valley Corporation, concerned eminent domain. In England, this is called ‘compulsory purchase’ and involves the right of an authority (in this example, the Colorado township of Telluride) to force a landowner to sell them their property. Logically enough, the township of Telluride only had authority to make compulsory purchases within the town limits.

In this case, the Supreme Justices ruled that the township could force a local company to sell them 570-acres even though it was outside the town limits – in fact, they ruled that any municipality could push any eminent domain anywhere in the state (which sounds daft.)

Finally, Matt Arnold brings up Salazar v. Davidson, one of the earliest cases for the supreme court justices currently up for reelection.

In 2001, they ruled that the Colorado Supreme Court was part of the Colorado General Assembly - and used that to weigh in on congressional redistricting (which might explain Colorado’s significant congressional shift from Republican to Democrat.)

The problem here is that this ruling clearly violates the most fundamental facet of the American democracy – the ‘checks and balances’ of separating the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government.

With these four examples, Clear the Bench Colorado raises some totally legitimate concerns that even a socially liberal person like myself is angered by. What's more, Matt Arnold, although a conservative himself, gained my support by wisely sidestepping judicial rulings regarding the traditionally ‘conservative’ agenda of gay rights, abortion and other social issues.

Clear the Bench Colorado wants to jettison the justices because of how they’ve ruled regarding the taxpayer and voter – not how they might rule on issues like gay marriage, or the controversial Amendment 62 (a push to have personhood extended to unborn babies, right from the moment of conception.)

This means even people like myself, who support same-sex marriage and think banning abortion would be a disaster, can support his campaign.

So there we have it - a tea party I wouldn't mind an invite to. Clear the Bench Colorado suffers from association with a movement of characterized by extremists and kooks - but theirs is ultimately an admirable cause.

In fact, it’s perhaps the best example of the what the tea party would like to identify itself as – a true grassroots movement standing up to an abusive authority. In many ways, the aim of Clear the Bench Colorado does resemble what the original ‘Sons of Liberty’ were trying to accomplish when they jettisoned all that tea into Boston Harbor.

You can find out more about Clear the Bench Colorado at their website – and if you’re a Colorado resident, don’t forget to vote to oust Michael Bender, Alex Martinez and Nancy Rice this November 2nd.

Is America Victorious?

“They just don’t get it,” said one England fan – over the New York Post’s controversial decision to declare Team USA’s 1-1 draw with England on Saturday a ‘victory.’

Sorry to say, it’s the England fan who doesn’t ‘get it.’ The qualifier was the subhead: “The Greatest Tie since Bunker Hill.” We Brits clearly require an injection of historical perspective from time to time.

Bunker Hill was the 1775 battle between British forces marching out of Boston and the Colonial Army, dug in at Breed’s Hill (Bunker Hill was actually nearby, and played little part in the battle.) The Brits mercilessly assaulted the American fortifications, but found the Colonial Army to be a far tougher nut to crack than they’d anticipated (at that early stage in the war, the British still considered the Colonial Army to be an ill-trained militia of farmers and boys. Bunker Hill taught them otherwise.)


The American troops were disciplined and focused – General Putnam, leading the Colonial Army in the field, uttered the famous line “Don’t shoot ‘till you see the whites of their eyes” as the Brits clambered up the hill to assault the American fortifications – only to get driven back by a hail of point-blank musket fire.

Eventually, after a long and bloody battle, the British succeeded in taking Breed’s Hill and claimed ‘victory’ - yet they suffered over a thousand causalities – more than twice the loss of the Colonial Army. British commander General Clinton ruefully admitted: “A few more such victories would have shortly put an end to British dominion in America.”

Historians have generally placed the score as a nil-nil draw; noting that the Americans decimated the British forces and escaped swiftly from the field of battle – even preventing their wounded from being captured. British General Burgoyne later admitted that the American retreat had been “no flight; it was even covered with bravery and military skill.”

From a broader perspective, this ‘draw’ was undoubtedly a victory for the United States. It was the single greatest blow to the British Army during the whole War of Independence. It hardened King George III’s resolve to crush the insurrection – and increased support for the Independence movement across the thirteen colonies. In many ways, Bunker Hill was the turning point; turning a rebellion against taxation into a de facto battle for Independence; one that ultimately resulted in the birth of the United States.

But is it fair to compare the Battle of Bunker Hill to America’s 1-1 ‘victory’ on Saturday?

Well, considering that America has never gone further than the semi-finals of the world cup – and spent 40 years in qualifying exile after their one-time victory against England in 1950 – I think it is. To have drawn even with the England Team is nothing short of a victory. It means the Americans are still in with a shot of advancing into the quarter-finals. In that respect – in that the venerable England team failed to decisively knock the Americans out of the competition – the draw was as much a Pyrrhic victory for England as the Battle of Bunker Hill ultimately turned out to be.

In Defence of the French...

Barack Obama was in Paris last week, wooing expatriate voters and playing 'president' opposite French head of state Nicholas Sarkozy.

Sarkozy was very diplomatic about things - stopping just short of endorsing Obama as America's next president, but admitting: "I wish Barack Obama luck — if it's him, France will be very happy."

One reporter went a little further than Sarkozy, accidentally referring to Obama as 'president' as if he'd already won the election - and forcing a rather embarrassed Barack to correct her!

Sarkozy and Obama have quite a lot in common - both being young, good looking presidential personalities who have been described as 'rock stars' rather than politicians. That goes a long way to explain why Sarkozy, although friendly with John McCain, enthusiastically supports Obama in his campaign for the White House.

France just loves Barack Obama.

I was watching this press conference during the lunch break at work - and was chatting to a colleague about how much the French seem to love Obama (snootily throwing in that my parents live in France and, therefore, I'm highly qualified to make blanket generalisations about the country.)

It was at that point that one of our bosses came in - a very senior executive. He watched the press conference for a moment or two and then said: "Do we really want a President the French love?"

He was voicing an opinion common throughout the United States - one that gained ground following 9/11, when France refused to join America and Britain in invading Iraq.

Many Americans simply hate the French.

I've always found this very curious. I mean, the level of antipathy goes beyond even the average uneducated Brit's opinion of the French - something along the lines of "Yeah, well, they all smell like garlic and don't wash, right? And the only thing France is fit to host is an invasion."

In America, people commonly accuse the French of being cowards, drearily dig up that old 'they'd all be speaking German if it wasn't for us' rubbish and I'm sure you'll remember congress renaming French Fries 'Freedom Fries' in the cafeteria.

In fact, it went so far as some people pouring boycotted French wine down the drains back in 2003! That, in my book, is the only crime worth of capital punishment.

So I say to your French-haters: 'Enough is enough!"

It's time you grew up about our friends, the French. If you'd spend less time watching American Idol and more time reading the wisdom of the great Thomas Jefferson you'd clearly see that France is America's closest ally and oldest friend.

Sure, some redneck idiots might argue 'the Frenchies would be speakin' German if it weren't for us.' But just as valid an observation is this - America would still be a British colony if it wasn't for the French.

France sent money, ships and troops to help overthrow the British rule in the thirteen colonies. In that respect, France was the midwife that helped give birth to the American nation. If it wasn't for them, an independent America would have been a long time coming - and probably along the same lines as Canada (with pictures of the Queen on their banknotes.)

France and America have certainly had their disagreements - especially recently. But to criticise and defame France, like so many American 'patriots' do, is to be utterly ignorant of that nation's long standing friendship and fraternity with America.

Go to MacDonalds this instant (or Chateau McDo as the French call it) and order yourself a jumbo serving of French Fries - and eat them with pride, mes amis!