Fund-of-funds Books

Winner of the 2001 Bronze Medal for historical fiction from ForeWord Magazine, Forever Green: Ireland Now And Again is an anthology of writings by Cathal Liam ranging from mind-expanding stories to political commentary and fluid poetry (including thematically appropriate poems by others as well as Liam's own verse). Remembering the Ireland of decades gone by, and scrutinizing political happenings in the Ireland of today, Forever Green is a compelling, emotional and heartfelt work embracing the continual flux of Irish culture up to the modern day.

~The Webster-Hayne Debate on the Nature of the Union~ essentially is the "nationalist interpretation" vis-à-vis the "compact interpretation" of the Union. Historian Forest McDonald avows, "The Constitution would be a compact not among sovereign states, as was the 1781 Articles of Confederation, nor a Lockean compact between ruler and ruled, nor even a compact of the whole people among themselves. It would be a compact among peoples of different political societies, in their capacities as peoples of the several states. Such a compact was undreamed of in political philosophy." After the 1787 Convention, there remained an unresolved tension nonetheless in the body politic over the nature of the Union, the powers of the general government and the residual powers belonging to the States. This played itself out in the Federalist Party tango with the Jeffersonian Republicans beginning in the 1790s. Though, the Federalist Party was divided against itself and eventually imploded. This tension further played itself out in these very debates, the ensuing sectional crisis and the War Between the States in the 1860s. This Liberty Fund book features speech and writing selections from Senator Daniel Webster of Massachusetts and his younger colleague Senator Robert Hayne of South Carolina. Webster expounds upon the nationalist theory while Hayne stands for the compact theory. These debates are pivotal to a more in-depth study of constitutional history and law. Moreover, they are absolutely integral to understanding the nature of the Union as it was and as it is. The Webster-Hayne Debates have been neglected in recent years, and what little emerges from these deliberations comes from nationalist partisan scholarship. This biased scholarship reveres Webster's nationalist theory as sacrosanct dogma while altogether dispensing with the compelling arguments for the compact view espoused by Hayne. Hayne's interpretation held resounding support during his time. In the early nineteenth century, the compact view of the Union held predominance not just amongst Jeffersonian Republicans, and the Tertium Quids, but also New England Federalists.

I have no qualms of saying that what Daniel Webster espouses about the Union is essentially a myth and that I consider the compact interpretation espoused by Robert Hayne as having ethical, moral, historical and constitutional high ground. Historian Forest McDonald has delienated the Lincoln-Webster nationalist interpretation as "untenable." Webster acts as though, the Union preceded the States, and it was formed by the people and sovereignty was always residual in the people in aggregate. Even nationalist Supreme Court Justice John Marshall declared, "No political dreamer was ever wild enough to think of breaking down the lines which separate the States and of compounding the American people into one common mass." The marked schism in constitutional hermeneutics played out in the Webster-Hayne debates was but a foreshadowing of the conflict that came about in the 1860s. The Union was tethered back together in 1865 not by the "consent of the governed" but by the bayonet, and a dissimilar polity removed from that one framed in 1787 emerged. After Reconstruction, the central government forever took ascendancy over the States. Today, sadly the nationalist interpretation has reached fruition in the post-New Deal era. The crescendo of power amongst central authority has produced a leviathan central government which sets dictates upon the states. The states more or less exist as mere corporations and subdivisions amenable to the central authority. Today, there is scarcely an object or power of regulation (education, health, safety, welfare) that is not touched upon by federal legislation. Wheneever state policy is not to the liking of the central authority, that authority threatens punitive action against the states such as withholding federal funds or promoting a Congressional statute overriding the State on a matter. Thus, the Tenth Amendment is turned on its nose and is sometimes little more than hollow platitude on a piece of antiquated parchment.

All things considered, I think the merits of Hayne's arguments far exceed that Webster, especially in light of history of the early Republic. Read these debates and see for yourself.

* * * * * * * * * * *
Selections from the late Senator Robert Hayne:
"It cannot be doubted, and is not denied, that before the formation of the constitution, each State was an independent sovereignty, possessing all the rights and powers appertaining to independent nations; nor can it be denied that, after the constitution formed, they remained equally sovereign and independent, as to all powers, not expressly delegated to the Federal Government."

"The very idea of a division of power by compact, is destroyed by a right claimed and exercised by either to be the exclusive interpreter of the instrument. Power is not divided, where one of the parties can arbitrarily determine its limits. A compact between two, with a right reserved to one, to expound the instrument according to his own pleasure, is not compact at all, but an absolute surrender of the whole subject matter to the arbitrary discretion of the party who is constituted the judge..."

"...[W]e are met by the argument that the Constitution was not formed by the States, in their sovereign capacity, but by the People, and it is therefore inferred that the Federal Government, being created by all the People, must be supreme, and though it is not contended that the Constitution may be rightfully violated, yet it is insisted that the from the decisions of the Federal Government there can be no appeal. It is obvious that this argument rests on the idea of State inferiority. Considering the Federal Government as one whole, and the States merely as component parts, it follows, of course, that the former is as much superior to the latter, as the whole is to the parts which it is composed. Instead of deriving their power by delegation from the States to the Union, this scheme seems to imply that individual States derive their power from the United States. Instead of deriving power by delegation from the States to the Union, this scheme seems to imply their power from the United States, just as petty corporations may exercise so much power, and no more, as their may enjoy permit them to enjoy."

"I deny that the Constitution was framed by the People in the sense in which that word is used on the other side, and insist that it was framed by the States acting in their sovereign capacity... it is clear they ['We the People...'] can only relate to the People as citizens of the several states, because the Federal Government was not then in existence."

"To show, that, in entering into this compact, the States acted in their sovereign capacity, and not merely as parts of one great community, what can be more conclusive than historical fact, that, when every State had consented to it except one, she was not held to be bound. A majority of the people in any State bound that State, but nine-tenths of all the people in any State bound that State, but nine-tenths of all the people of the United States could not bind the people of Rhode Island, until Rhode Island, as a State, consented to the compact. It cannot be denied, that, at the time the Constitution was framed, the people of the United States were members of regularly organized governments, citizens of independent States; and unless, these State governments had been dissolved, it was impossible that the people could have entered into any compact but as citizens of these States."

Selections from the late Senator Daniel Webster:
"Consolidation!-that perpetual cry, both of terror and delusion-consolidation! Sir, when gentleman speak of the effects of a common fund, belonging to all the States, as having a tendency to consolidation, what do they mean? Do they mean, or can they mean, any thing more than the Union of the States will be strengthened, by whatever continues or furnishes inducements to the people of the States to hold together? If they mean merely this, then, no doubt, the public lands as well as every thing else in which we have a common interest, tends to consolidation; and to this species of consolidation ever true American ought to be attached; it is neither more nor less than strengthening the Union itself. This is the sense in which the framers of the constitution use the word consolidation; and in which sense I adopt and cherish it."

"When they said I believe; fully and sincerely believe, that the Union of the States is essential to the prosperity and safety of the States. I am a Unionist, and in this sense a National Republican. I would strengthen the ties that hold us together. Far, indeed, in my wishes, very far distant be the day, when our associated and fraternal stripes shall severed asunder, and when that happy constellation under which we have risen to so much renown, shall be broken up, and be seen sinking, star after star, into obscurity and night!"

If you like investing or curious...check this one out. The text in the book broke down simple definitions and helped me comprehend more. It was enlightening experience to find out about the bond, money market industry. If you are an investor, add this to your library. I did! it's worth it.

This is a must for all who invest in this day and age. A quick read, but one that could save your investments!

What Should Economists Do is a little book with some big ideas. It deals with many complicated subjects. It examines the relation of economics to other academic disciplines. It examines what economists can learn from and teach to other academics. It examines the scientific method in economics. It examines the use of a-priori axioms and the empirical testing of hypotheses. It examines subjectivism in economics. It examines human nature. It looks at the human desire for self-improvement. It delves into political economy. It examines Public Choice theory and the conflict between public financed education and academic freedom. Above all it examines the nature of human choice and argues against deterministic notions of "scientific choice" that preclude real choice.

What Should Economists do makes you think critically about modern Neoclassical economics. If choice is fully defined by utility functions, can there be real choice? How can the mathematical approach to social theory that economists favor be reconciled with the analysis of real people and real institutions? What can different disciplines learn from each other? This book is one of Buchanan's' best works. It is one of his most readable too. It should be read, not only by economists, but by anyone who is interested in social theory.

I loved this book because it explores all mutual fund vehicles including sub-accounts of life insurance products. Many consumers will be introduced more to the insurance products in his next book "100% tax free investing"

As our church is currently planning a capital campaign, I found this book to have a very valuable set of advice useful to campaigns of our size (relatively small).
A lot of information available out there is more attuned to large, multi-million dollar efforts with associated organizational structures, and this was not suitable for our needs.

I highly recommend this book for those in similar settings.

In the "Coup d'etat Convention at Philadelphia" in 1787, Hamiltonian proponents of a strong central government, who had lamented the establishment of the confederacy since the publication of Gibbon's "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire in 1776, took the opportunity to overthrow the Articles rather than amend them (the meeting was called for "the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation".) and replace them with a Roman-style Constitution. To camouflage their actions and intentions to secure a neo-Roman government as their tool to usurp the peoples' liberties in order to privilege themselves, they then stole the term "Federalist" and applied it to their series of Orwellian double-speak propaganda dubbed "The Federalist Papers". The true federalists who stood for the Principles of 1776 and the Articles of Confederation, were given the misnomer "Anti-Federalists". The key players in the anti-federalist "Federalist" movement were three young opportunists: James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and Fisher Ames.

Madison and Hamilton are legendary among students of U.S. history; Fisher Ames is relatively unknown. But in his time, his name was mentioned as often as his peers. He was an accomplished propagandist for the Federalists and it was he, at age 31, who penned the final draft of the First Amendment to the Constitution in an attempt to appeal to the true federalists (Anti-Federalists) for support of the ratification of the neo-Romanist document. Ames's oratorial skills were also brilliant; he delivered powerful speeches in sessions of Congress after the neo-Roman republic had been established. His best speech was made on behalf of Jay's Treaty, where Congress had sent the Supreme Court Justice to Britain to reach a settlement that would avoid war between the two countries, and Jay came back with a treaty that sold-out Yankee interests to the British.

During and after his political career, Ames wrote hundreds of letters to Federalist Party leaders, especially in Massachusetts. His letters give an insider's perspective on events and personalites surrounding the "Coup d'etat at Philadelphia" and the establisment of the U.S. Republic. In this two-volume set of the writings of Fisher Ames are 46 essays in Volume I and 292 letters and 17 speeches in Volume II. The essays are grouped under ten themes: Social Class and Character, From Consideration to Nation, On Founding and Patriotism, On Monarchical Versus Republican Government, On America's Political Parties, On Equality, Defending The "Federalists", Attacking the Republicans, On The French Revolution and European Parties, and Eulogies. These two volumes encompass 1,618 pages. As an historical representative sampling of Federalist thought in addition to their Orwellian doublespeak tricks, it is awesome.

For example, Ames wrote a letter under the name Bifron Janus, one of his many pen names. He titled it "Against Jacobins":

"We have a noisy party who call themselves republicans - democrats - equality men, etc. etc. etc. They are forever crying out the people - the people. This hyprocrisy would be a matter of diversion, if we could laugh at what is horrid. These bawlings are against the people, not on their side, and the steps they pursue are intended and well adapted to narrow the power of the people, not to enlarge it. They are anti-republicans, the real and truly dangerous aristocrats of our country, the very men who hate equality, and who try to rule and domineer in spite of the laws. . . When the Constitution was on its passage, this very party, then beginning to rally and to set itself in array, pretended great zeal for the Union, but the old confederation was, said they, equal to every national purpose."

From reading the hundreds of pieces of prose collected here, you will see how the Hamiltonians and other elites feared free enterprise and libertarianism. They seized political power through effective use of propaganda and disinformation in order to suppress free enterprise as much as possible, and to usurp the peoples' liberties in order to privilege themselves.

The book is especially entertaining for my son since he watches zooboomafoo every day. If your kids love animals they will love to learn to count them with this book. The poster at the end lets them review the animals and numbers all at once.

I just received this colorful, well photographed, cute as can be, 16 mos. calendar from Amazon.com. See those baby Emperor Penguins on the cover? They begin the 2001 parade! Along with Snow Monkeys, Leopards, and on my birth month, May, an exquisite portrait of a White Tail Deer fawn--these animals truly capture your heart. There are Hippos, Wolves, and Bears--oh my! Each month includes; the picture of a baby animal (sometimes with mom), an interesting history of the animal, most global holidays, and each date gives you plenty of room for personal notations.

I am extremely choosy about my yearly calendars and searched extensively before choosing this charming wall enhancer. What better way to start the New Year--keeping track of your days while contributing to the World Wildlife Fund? Buy it--the animals will thank you for it!