Condo News Online - Letters, Opinions

Condition of Insurance

By Michael I. Rickman, West Palm Beach

After the 2004 and 2005 hurricane seasons, many insurance companies found themselves stripped of resources. Resources is an interesting word. Not only had they depleted their own capital, but they also blew out their re-insurers.

Among those companies blown away was Southern Family, owned by the Poe Group.

Even if Poe was willing to take a chance on 2006, and reinvest in Florida, they couldn’t.

All of the re-insurance treaties expired on 1 July 2006, and all the re-insurance writers said "no mas. We are out of Florida." I believe they closed out on some 30+ retail insurers. The retail insurers traditionally hold 30% of the policy and reinsure the rest. No re-insurance – no insurance. No company can afford to insure 100% alone.

And so Poe did not go bankrupt. They simply put a DNR (do not resuscitate) sign on the front door of Southern Family, and let it die a quick natural death.

The State of Florida is obliged by law to cover all of this insurance, and be the insurer of last resort. But they too were blown away, with surplus of $15,000,000,000 down to not enough to spit on. But they are still required to cover all that insurance from 30+ companies, with more business to come. And so they were forced to borrow $2,500,000,000 in order to try to attract some re-insurers.

Who is the State of Florida? The Citizens Property Insurance Company of course.

But $2.5 billion is not enough. They need an additional quick infusion of cash.

So they went, through the Insurance Department to the Governor who refused to govern.

So they went, through the Insurance Department, to the Legislature. Here members of every political persuasion made a bi-cameral decision not to legislate. And so they drew up a rescue and survival plan and went to a Judge.

The Judge, cognizant of the absence of insurers and re-insurers, mindful of the obligation of the states insurer (Citizens) to insure and aware of the Citizens desperate need for cash, didn’t have much choice, and signed off on the program.

The plan was for Citizens to assume the Southern Family and all the other companies that withdrew. They would keep those policies in force, as is, with the same insurance perils (in our case "All Risk" building coverage) at the existing premium, until the policy’s expiration. (see your insurance advisor) One codicil however. Any building or any group of buildings insured as a single entity, for an amount of insurance exceeding $25 million, would be severed from Southern Family effective 1 July and re-written in Citizens at a much higher rate, with basic perils. (Fire, Lightning, Windstorm, Smoke, Hail, Aircraft, Vehicles, Explosions, Riots attending strikes, Vandalism, & Malicious Mischief.) This is a far cry from "All Risk".

This would make the coverage more palatable for re-insurers and at the same time provide that quick infusion of cash.

It then fell to us to prove that each of the condominium buildings is a separate and autonomous condominium corporation. Thus they cannot in any way be bundled into one entity. We are prepared to go before a Magistrate, if need be, to sign an order to undo this illegal group and reinstate the each building (group) back on the Southern Family policy, with the rest of the village effective 1 July, without prejudice, and return the monies illegally acquired.

If we succeed in a timely manner, this is a tourniquet that can only be applied until the current policy expiration. At that time we will need TWO policies. One from Citizens and the second to cover the remainder of the "All Risk" conditions. At best, it affords each association the opportunity to assess each owner for sufficient funds to accrue enough money to pay the new, much higher deposit, and prepare your budget to include the new higher installment.

These new figures are being crunched as you read.

This is a problem that needs attention yesterday. This is a problem that needs a special session of the Florida legislature, immediately. Such session should be open to the public to hear and participate. This session should be dedicated to this problem and this problem solely. And this session must be dedicated to resolving the multifold problems, both those which are the causes and effects of this crisis.

The public must be made aware of those in our government that are for and/or against such a session.

In the final analyses the people will vote accordingly. This is their right.

Are Military Veterans Really Appreciated?

Special to the Condo News

By Jim Hart

How many Veterans Organizations are there? The American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Jewish War Veterans, Disabled American Veterans, AMVETS, Veterans of The Battle of The Bulge, The 8th Air Force Historical Society (in which I serve as President of the State of Florida) and on and on. Every veteran belonging to these organizations does so for a reason. My reason for belonging to the American Legion and celebrating 50 years continuous membership this year is to give back service to those returning Vets who were not as fortunate as I, to return in one piece.

Every organization extends a welcome to returning veterans but something is wrong today. The current generation thinks differently than we did after WW-2 and Korea. They are not joiners or perhaps they do not understand that we are here for them. They know about The Veterans Hospitals because they go there for treatment but do they see representatives of our organizations there?

Unfortunately not but we are there to help vets with problems other than their health. Any veteran should contact one of the organizations I have mentioned if they are in need of help in any area.

This last November 11, Veterans Day saw the local school system completely disregard this solemn day and compelled students to attend school rather than pay respect to so many who have served their country. Attendance at our ceremony in Royal Palm Beach was shameful as it was in other communities. How do these people think we live in a democracy? It is because we fought for it and many died for it. Isn't this worth something?

Every day while reading The Palm Beach Post I see where Mr. and Mrs. X have given thousands or millions to one or another organization tied to the arts or a College or University or to some charity. I have yet to see where even one group has given one penny to their local veterans group. In Royal Palm Beach, where I live we are in hopes of receiving a piece of land from our village on which to build a POST HOME. Over the years we have saved some money raised from various fund raising events but when it comes time to build a post home for $750,000 wouldn't it be wonderful if some organization somewhere would find it in their hearts to say, "Thank you, Vets", and make a donation to a veterans cause?

Please ask yourselves again, "Do You Think Military Veterans Are Really Appreciated?

Jim Hart is President Florida Chapter 8th Air Force Historical Society; First Vice President of the West Palm Beach Garden Club; Vice President of Tri-County Communities Association (TCCA).

As I See It ...

An Historical Perspective of The Pledge of Allegiance

By Jimmy Shirley, Jr.

Allegiance is defined by the Random House Collegiate Dictionary, Unabridged Edition Copyright 1984, as 1. "the loyalty of a citizen to his, {or her}, government or of a subject to his, {or her} sovereign and 2. "loyalty or devotion to some person, group, cause, or the like."

In recent months, this has become a hot topic amongst war veteran groups, among others. Recently, according to the 3 June 2006 edition of the Palm Beach Post, U.S. District Judge Kenneth L. Ryskamp ruled, in a lawsuit filed by a Palm Beach County teenager, that "the State could not force students to stand during the pledge nor could they require students to obtain parental permission" to abstain from reciting the pledge. The judge based his ruling on a couple of factors. One, portions of a 1942 Florida law and the Palm Beach County School Board policy based on the law, violated the student's 1st and 14th Amendment rights. Two, he cited precedence in a "1943 U.S. Supreme court ruling striking down a West Virginia law requiring students to salute and pledge to the flag."

It might shed some light, and smoothe over some rankled feelings, to take a look at the history of the pledge. It was the inspiration of two avowed socialists/Marxists, FRANCIS BELLAMY-1855-1931, and his cousin EDWARD BELLAMY-1850-1898. For more information about these men, for those who are internet savvy, go to the website http://members.ij.net/rex/pledge2.html.

In the early days of the pledge, God was not even part of it. Here is how it was originally worded in August of 1892, "I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." When the Founding Fathers established this Republic of republics, most of them had in mind a Republic of sovereign republics and, in fact, some of the writings of the Republic's early statesmen oftentimes referred to "our confederacy" when referencing the U.S.A. I suspect that these great men of the United States' early years would have never favoured any kind of national patriotism. Had they not fought a war with England to free themselves from that sort of strong central government — that arbitrarily imposes its will on its citizens?

After The War Between The States and heading into the new century, there was a new sense of nationalism. But there also was a growing sense that big government had the potential to solve the problems of mankind. To many in this country, this notion found favour and had been reinforced by the book, "The Communist Manifesto" by Karl Marx. This idealism found favour with the Bellamy cousins, inspiring cousin Edward to write the totalitarian socialist novel Looking Backward. In the book, society has become one giant socialist monopoly. Men are treated as military draftees, from the age of twenty-one until the age of forty-five, in society's industrial army. Bellamy's glorification of the military includes government assignment of all jobs. Everyone is issued ration cards which are used to draw goods from government storehouses. By force of government, no one may have any more than anyone else. The entire education system is only a government-school system and it creates the industrial army and the entire socialist monopoly system. Edward Bellamy portrayed it as Utopia.

In his original articles concerning the Pledge of Allegiance, Francis Bellamy promoted government schools and sniped at the many better alternatives, and urged that education should come only from government. Such are the minds that gave us the "Pledge".

But, there is more. Originally, the "Pledge" was recited with the right arm straight out and stiff, more reminiscent of the "Nazi salute". It was because of this "salute" that the Supreme Court made its 1943 ruling in the West Virginia case. Pictures of this may be seen at the previously mentioned website.

And, to gain a better perspective about this, consider the words of President Theodore Roosevelt when he said, "Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does NOT mean to stand by the president or any other public official save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country."

And, "The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."

-- Theodore Roosevelt - "Roosevelt in the Kansas City Star", May 7, 1918

Now that you have read "the REST of the story", you may better understand that patriotism and pledging allegiance is not defined by blind loyalty. If the individual feels moved to always recite the "Pledge" whenever called to do so, then it is right for him, or her. And, when someone feels strong enough about it not to do so, the act can not be misunderstood for disloyalty to the country. The blood shed to purchase today's brand of American freedom also purchased the right to dissent, a most inviolate trust. Where would we be today without the dissent of Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, James Madison, George Washington, et al when they dissented with the British government?

American Legion, Growing Citizens Movement, Support Public Expression of Religion Act, H.R. 2679

By Robert Jaegers, Commander, American Legion Palm Beach Post 12

All across the nation, more and more Americans are rising up in a grass roots movement in support of the Public Expression of Religion Act, H.R. 2679 (PERA), which is pending before the House Judiciary Committee.

This includes many American Legion members and other citizens here in South Florida.

PERA would amend the Civil Rights Attorney Fees Act, 42 U.S. Code Section 1988, to withdraw the authority of judges to award attorney fees or damages, to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), or anyone else, in lawsuits brought under the Establishment of Religion Clause of the First Amendment.

The ACLU, in a policy generally unknown to the public, seeks and receives millions of dollars annually in taxpayer-paid attorney fee awards ordered by judges in ACLU Establishment Clause lawsuits against the Boy Scouts, in lawsuits against the public display of the Ten Commandments or other symbols of America's religious heritage, in cases banning religious symbols at veterans' memorials (as in the precedent- setting Mojave Desert WWI Veterans' Memorial Case in California), seeking to ban the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance, and even to forbid Christmas Holidays in schools.

The purpose of PERA is, as stated in H.R. 2679: "To amend the Revised Statutes of the United States to eliminate the chilling effect on the constitutionally protected expression of religion by State and local officials that results from the threat that potential litigants may seek damages and attorney fees."

PERA would apply only to Establishment Clause lawsuits, and to no other civil rights claims.

A driving force in the grass-roots movement for PERA is The American Legion, the largest veterans' organization in the world, with 2.7 million wartime-veteran members.

The American Legion, at its National Convention in 2004, adopted Resolution 326, "Preserve Mojave Desert Veterans' Memorial." It called on Congress to amend the Civil Rights Act to eliminate the authority of judges to award attorney fees to the ACLU, or anyone following those case precedents, in Establishment Clause lawsuits. PERA does exactly that.

Rep. John Hostettler (R-IN), principal sponsor of PERA, has said of the growing grassroots movement and of the American Legion, "PERA is gaining recognition as an important piece of legislation both among members of Congress and constituents. It is encouraging that the American Legion has voiced strong support for this legislation and it is critical that we pass PERA in the 109th Congress so that freedom of religious expression under the First Amendment can be restored and protected."

We veterans in the American Legion are for the Public Expression of Religion Act, and 100% against our tax money being given to the ACLU by judges to attack the Boy Scouts, veterans' memorials, and American values generally. If the ACLU feels it has to bring these lawsuits that most Americans abhor, it should at least have the decency not to "stick it" to the taxpayers to make a profit. We are calling on our representatives in the House and Senate to sponsor or support PERA, or to explain why they will not.

There can be no doubt that the ACLU is greatly profiting, at taxpayer expense, by its supposedly 'pro bono' (no attorney fee) Establishment Clause lawsuits.

The awards are staggering local governmental bodies, and have a chilling effect upon any attempts to resist the unconscionable demands. Here are but a few examples:

*The ACLU received almost $940,000 in attorney fees when San Diego settled ACLU's lawsuit to drive the Boy Scouts out of Balboa Park.

* ACLU received nearly $500,000 in the famous Judge Roy Moore 'Ten Commandments Case' in Alabama.

*ACLU received $108,000 to stop Boy Scouts from recruiting in Portland schools (the plaintiff atheist claimed he was offended; the schools surrendered for fear of more fees.)

* ACLU received close to $90,000 from Chicago Schools in a suit that has already resulted in a banning of the Boy Scouts from the schools.

* ACLU is seeking many more thousands of dollars from the Department of Defense in the Chicago case, where it has also sued to drive the Boy Scouts from all military bases and to stop the Department of Defense from ever providing any assistance to the Boy Scout Jamboree. (A judge has already held that the National Jamboree violates the Establishment of Religion Clause. That part of the case is under appeal.)

*ACLU has received $63,000, so far, in its unprecedented lawsuit to destroy the religious symbol at the remote Mojave Desert Veterans' Memorial. This solitary granite Latin cross was originally erected by World War I veterans in 1934 on what was then private land. The property was incorporated into the Mojave Desert Federal Preserve in 1994 by former President Clinton, and the ACLU then took the action as an opportunity to bring yet another Establishment Clause lawsuit.

The American Legion considers that case an example of ACLU's fanatical Establishment Clause litigation, and a very dangerous precedent.

There is nothing in the law to prevent the Mojave Desert Veterans' Memorial precedent from being used by 'pro bono' attorneys from the ACLU to sue to destroy the religious symbols on the graves of veterans at our twenty-two National Cemeteries, or the 9,000 Crosses and Stars of David at Normandy Beach, or at other veterans' memorials, and then, to seek and receive taxpayer-paid attorney fees for that desecration from the government.

This is a very real threat that will be prevented only if PERA passes, as PERA would eliminate the authority of judges to give, and the ACLU or anyone else to receive, taxpayer-paid attorney fees in such cases.

We must prevent this ongoing abuse. The American Legion is committed to fight for PERA and against the exploitation of the law by the ACLU or anyone else, for as long as it takes, in order to protect the Boy Scouts, our veterans' memorials, the taxpayers, and our American values.

The Case for the Electoral College —

a Closer Look

By Jimmy L. Shirley, Jr.

The Electoral College (EC) comes under scrutiny from time to time, as it should. It is within the purview of the American people to examine the very essence of the form of government we live with. The USA of 2004 bears little resemblance to the USA of 1800 — geographically, politically, ethnically. The overwhelming majority of Americans today would find living in 1800 extremely difficult, maybe even bizarre. They would be astonished to find out that they really did not elect the President of the USA.

Electors were chosen from the several states to convene in their respective states to choose a President. It was thought this arrangement would prevent deal making, corruption or foreign influence. The person who had the most votes, provided that they had at least one more than half of the total, became the President; the second most votes was the Vice-President.

Back in that day, men did not campaign for the office because it was considered unseemly, undignified, dishonorable.

Andrew Jackson changed that. Angry for losing the 1824 election, he tried again in 1828, taking his case to the people, holding parades and rallies to encourage the voters to vote for him. It worked and presidential campaigns were forever changed. The 1824 election was the first time a candidate won the election without the greatest popular vote. Because no one received the necessary majority to become president, according to the 12th Amendment, the election fell upon the House of Representatives who narrowly selected John Quincy Adams, son of John Adams, the second president. This was the first father and son presidential team. It was also the last presidential election that was decided in the US House of Representatives as provided for in the 12th Amendment.

One of the reasons the Founding Fathers created the Electoral College, instead of a direct, popular vote, was that they feared a tyrant could manipulate public opinion and come to power. Thus, did Alexander Hamilton write in the Federalist Papers:

It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations. It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief.

Also, it was meant to be a concession of extra power to the smaller states. Obviously, the smaller states (those that have the smallest number of electoral votes), such as Vermont (3), Delaware (3), Rhode Island (4), New Hampshire (4), would be left out of the loop if there were no equalizer. Consider this, the state of Wyoming cast about 240,500 votes, and thus each elector represented 80,160 votes, while in California approximately 9,830,550 votes were cast for 55 electoral votes, thus representing 178,737 votes per electorate. Obviously, this creates a counter-balance to voters in the small states whose votes actually count more than those people living in medium and large states.

It encourages people to vote in those states where the law is winner take all. It does not matter if a candidate wins by 50.1% or by 80%. So, when a race is very close, this is where minority votes become important in direct contrast to their population percentage. It compels candidates to appeal to all voters, where they might not ordinarily do so. In Florida, President Bush won by 376,923 votes, or, by 5 percentage points. Florida has 7,241 precincts in which to vote. If 53 more people per precinct had voted for Kerry, he would have had Fla.'s 27 electoral votes, and the election. But, then he would be President without carrying the popular national vote, if everything else had been the same.

So, if one is for or against the Electoral College really depends on if the favorite candidate won or not. The Electoral College stands as a guard between 'mob rule', which is a democracy, and, representative democracy, which is a republic. The United States of America was established, by our Founding Fathers, as a republic, and for good reason. Before we go tampering with the Electoral College, we must first define ourselves as a nation of the new millennium. Are we satisfied with representative democracy (republic), or do we want mob rule (democracy)? Or, are we ready to go the way of ancient Rome? Rome went from being a republic to an empire — from representative rule to being ruled by Caesar. The people handed over its responsibilities as Roman citizens to the ruling elite, in exchange for the welfare state. And eventually, Rome fell, and, as history shows, all empires do.

The Way I See It ...

The Case for Freedom OF Religion ...

Not FROM Religion

By Jimmy L. Shirley, Jr.

On 4 July 1776, the representatives of the 13 British colonies, then in rebellion against the British government, made a truly revolutionary statement in the Declaration of Independence. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,..." In history, it had always been held that any "rights" one may have had always been dispensed, or taken away, at the pleasure of whoever was the ruler, king, emperor, etc. That we had "God-given rights" was truly a revolution in thought.

"Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"...

There are four other issues covered in the 1st Amendment after this wording. This focus is on religion and how it pertains to Americans and their expression of their religious beliefs on public property.

The Founding Fathers knew very well from history how 'State Religions' had wreaked havoc, waged wars, suppressed scientific research, and killed people — all in the 'name of God'. And they were determined that that would not happen here.

As to how the 1st Amendment addresses the issue of religion and government, the first sentence is a direct quote. From this quote, the United States Supreme Court ruled many years ago that it means 'a wall of separation between church and State', based on a letter by President Jefferson written 1 January 1802 to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut. The Supreme Court disregarded 145 years of tradition when it ruled, in 1947:

"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a State nor the federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State'."

It seems to this writer that 'Congress shall make no law...' was overlooked. In the early years of the Republic, it was understood that the 10th Amendment held sway, i.e. 'The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.' In other words, in this writer's opinion, whatever the Constitution does not authorize the Federal Government to do, it cannot, on its own authority, do. Notice that here the word State is capitalized. The framers did that on purpose to show where the importance was. Therefore, it was understood by the framers of the Constitution that religion fell under the purview of the States, not the 'Common Government', as the Federal Government use to be referred to, or the Congress, as in Congress shall make no law. These first ten Amendments, or the Bill of Rights, were always meant to limit the power of the Federal Government, not the States.

For years and years, Manger scenes, around Christmas time, were placed on court house squares, public right of ways, public parks, etc. because the religion of most Americans was Christianity. Again, it was understood that this fell under the purview of the several States. In the meantime, Congress had made no law. It was one thing if the States made a law. It was a whole 'nother matter if Congress did. And it had not.

Since the late 1940s the trend has been toward 'freedom from religion', not the free exercise thereof, on public places. This seems, to this writer, to be a wrong headed approach. The two major religions in this country are Christianity and Judaism. The way I see it, there is room enough in this country for all of us to celebrate our religious beliefs, respectfully. I respect yours and you respect mine. And we respect theirs. All on public grounds, the courthouse square.

Just so the readers know, "separation of church and State" is not to be found in the Constitution, nor is there a federal law to that effect. It is in the wording of the U.S. Supreme court rulings. One might note, though, that the 10 Commandments are carved in stone on the Supreme Court building. As it should be, those being the basis of all law in the Western civilizations.