Friday, December 28, 2012

The 7-1/2 Year Marriage License

Excerpt from Chapter 9 -- Pages 206-209


The policy of termed marriage licenses was an extremely novel one.  I viewed it at the time as a bit reprehensible in my heart, but the government could not overlook the will of the people.  The idea of termed marriages worked out to be perfect on just about every level.  As divorce rates, by that time, had grown to almost sixty percent, there seemed to be no point in marriages being considered for life anymore.  It just wasn’t the way that families in America were structured.

Another benefit was the strain on the relationship that this kind of the marriage alleviated.  There really was not the need for a messy divorce as people knew that they could just wait out the current term of their marriage and that would be the end of it.  Of course, messy break-ups of marriages did not become a thing of the past, as the dilemma is still a big problem when both parties do not want to separate to the same degree.  However, that was no different than what was going on prior to the termed licenses so it didn’t matter all that much.

A third benefit was the reduction of costs of legal fees.  Divorce law was a massive business and usually the biggest cost incurred during separations.  Since the settlement was now predetermined as part of the marriage license, legal expenses were lessened.  By 2025, hardly anyone went to court anymore.  Initially, there were many marriage licenses that were called into question when the marriage broke up, and it was primarily by the person who had not increased financially as much as the other.

Prior to 2018, however, there was a great injustice happening in America as the wealthier person was unceremoniously being robbed of half their wealth as a result of a divorce.  The prime example that began the backlash was Tiger Woods divorce.  Though he was clearly guilty of many infidelities, he had to part with over $500,000,000.  No one ever contested that Tiger earned all the revenue for the couple, and that she certainly provided well in her role as mother and wife, but at the end of the day I don’t think anyone felt she deserved that much money after just three years of marriage.  There was very much a sentiment in America at the time that Tiger was, in fact, being punished.

The situation as I mentioned earlier, is that many women viewed their appearance and sexuality as their means of gaining stability in society.  These women were regularly initiating divorces at ridiculous high numbers as a means of cashing in on their husbands wealth.  This happened at all levels and needed to be curtailed.  To be fair though, many men who found themselves in these situations were quite culpable in sustaining this circumstance as they married the women for their appearance.

The termed marriage license had a list of independent assets as well as the expected financial positions for each partner throughout the balance of the marriage.  There usually was a willingness on both parties to share matrimonial assets that grew (or shrunk) over the period of the license, and that was agreed upon at the time as well.  Whatever amount in either hard cash or percentages of assets was agreed upon was what was rewarded at the end of the license period.  Most of the time, it was a 50/50 split, so in practice remarkably little changed.  Where there was a substantive improvement in the dissolution phase, was where one party had a disproportionate amount of assets at the outset.  These divorces were now settled in no time and the parties involved could get on with their lives.

The terms of the license was as follows:  If one of the persons involved was in their first marriage the period was 7-1/2 years in duration. All other licenses were for five years.  Renewal of your marriage license was automatically a five-year period if no termination request was received.  After the second renewal of a license at 12-1/2 years of marriage, an update to the asset list had to be submitted.

The notion of common law marriages was entirely abandoned.  Couples that lived together without a marriage license were not entitled to any assets other than their own personal ones.  This meant that if a couple were together and did not register a marriage license, and then they broke up, there was no such thing as palimony or financial compensation to either.  The thinking was that as traditional relationships were being abandoned then so should the common-law approach.  The couple was either building a life together, which in this case meant you were married, or you weren’t.  Marriage licenses were no longer seen as an emotional type of agreement but rather a legal one.  It made sense that everyone entering a relationship that would likely end.  It was better to address this scenario up front with clarity, rather than after the fact when emotional and vindictive thinking and legal posturing would be prevalent.

Not surprisingly, the termed marriage licenses caught on like wild fire and in the first year, over 15,000,000 licenses were registered on-line.  It only took about thirty minutes as long as you had your asset inventory (which was updatable as required).  There was no need to go to a church, hire a lawyer, and register at town hall or even say “I do” if you didn’t want to.  We were quite kitschy in having both parties click on an “I DO” button as a form of agreement to the terms of the license they were submitting. 

Friday, December 14, 2012

Position on Gun Control and Punishment

Chapter 8 -- pps 168-170

Author's note:  Kennedy and Newfoundland join the USA in 2016.

The quintessential example of the “framers intent” that we were able to implement first in Kennedy and Newfoundland (two new US states) was in the area of gun control.  I do not in any way shape or form disagree that the Second amendment gives the right to bear arms.  We, however, took a much more rational rather than historical or patriotic approach to reinterpret this right to exclude concealed weapons and all assault weapons.

Handguns and shot guns were allowed, but only under license and permit and certainly under overall guidelines on how they should be maintained and when they could be utilized.  Of course, in 2016 the usual rhetoric started about the rights and freedoms of Americans but with the support of our new American citizens in Kennedy and Newfoundland, who did not want guns in their states, we were able to frame an argument to continue gun regulation that would not have been possible at any other time.  The initial trial period and success of the efforts in Kennedy and Newfoundland eventually led most of the other states to implement similar laws.  Today in 2043, only Texas and Alaska have not implemented some form of gun control.

I have been accused on occasion of not defending the Constitution fully, but I disagree with this assessment as the Constitution was always part of any and all discussions.  Our argument was based once again on the intent of the founding fathers.  It is pretty clear that the right to bear arms is matched with a desire to keep unwanted military personnel out of one’s personal premises.  This was of course the result of three guiding objectives in the 1700s.  One, the British were to be fought at all costs, two, the right to own property and the subsequent right to protect your private property was something worth fighting for and three, the freedom to be left alone.  Of these three, I clearly think that the second point was the one that the founding fathers were trying to protect at the time.  Let`s face it, it was the mid-1700s and property was scarce so the point was that a homeowner who had taken the time to develop and build a property had ever right to know that the property could not just be taken away from them and that the use of personal force against any usurper was appropriate.  Keep in mind that the new Americans in the 1700s were trying to establish the concept of private property since they did not have ownership rights while they had been in Europe.  Also, home owners did not have to acquiesce to any type of governmental expropriation of property.  This too was a substantial structural change by Americans who were unable to resist against the land owning classes and, in fact, their goods and possessions as well as their private persons were ultimately owned by their superiors while in Europe.  These rights would have to be defended by force whenever necessary by the new Americans.

Utilizing this rationale, the case was made that the use of firearms to protect private property was universally justified but limited to handguns.  Hunting of course was a prominent part of the culture in Kennedy and Newfoundland and that was not going to change, so shotguns were perfectly acceptable as well.  What were not welcome were concealed weapons and assault weapons, both of which were banned and considered illegal from day one of Kennedy’s and Newfoundland’s founding.  Personal protection on the streets was not considered a valid reason to carry a gun.


Three items made this approach possible.

The first, as mentioned earlier was the willingness of our new US citizens to go along with this approach, and as I mentioned it was actually a mandate of the new Americans joining the USA.  Second, was the harsh punishments handed out by the courts towards anyone found with a gun of any sort in their possession without a license or hunting permit.  As well, not having your gun secured properly at home or within mobility situations, for example, driving to a campsite, were met with exceptionally large fines.  For example, all guns during transportation had to be unloaded, in a hard-shell gun case, in a locked position and never in an unlocked part of the vehicle except for loading and unloading.

The third thing was that no costs were attributed to licensing or registering of guns.  All guns had to be registered and it was a very easy and non-bureaucratic process.  You provided your name, your address, the gun make and model as well as the registration number on the gun.  Ammunition did not have to be registered.  If you were found with a gun anywhere on your possession or on your property that was unregistered it was an automatic jail sentence and then a probationary period.

If someone used a gun in the commitment of a crime against another then the automatic jail time period was a minimum of two years.  Discharging a weapon in the commitment of a crime carried with it a minimum sentence of ten years and if an injury was incurred then it went to twenty years.  Murder with a gun became an automatic death penalty regardless of what the motive was determined to be.  If a husband killed his wife he received a death sentence, if someone killed an innocent bystander they received a death sentence.  Guns were not to be tolerated under any circumstances in the execution of violent crime.

Some people at the time, considered the automatic death penalty as particularly harsh and inhumane.  Considering of course that the death penalty did not even exist in Canada prior to joining the US it was also a bit of a surprise.  The new citizens of Kennedy and Newfoundland though were adamant that the violence that is associated with certain parts of US culture would not come to their states.  The new Americans associated the American violent streak in relation mostly to the prevalence and acceptance of guns by the community at large in the United States.  They felt that harsh deterrents were the best way to combat any infiltration of this poor part of own US culture.

As previously mentioned, one significant problem with the US legal system in the early twenty-first century was that all deterrence had been removed from the system.  Now, as we know, forgiveness is a big part of the American way but as I have mentioned many times throughout these pages, personal responsibility had to become more of a hall mark of being an American.  This was especially so in the world of violent crime.  For too long, perpetrators of violent crime were too often able to escape appropriate justice due to a number of excuses such as over-crowding of prisons, bureaucracy, inept legal representation, access to superior legal representation and a myriad of other rules that were designed to protect their right.

Being considered innocent rather than guilty was a fine moral principle and one that I support fanatically as everyone knows.  But once guilt has been established, especially in this instance where we were referring to gun usage, punishment needed to become very severe.  The main thing that citizens came to understand that if guns were utilized in an appropriate manner and in the proper way then absolutely no retribution would ever come to that person.  However, when guns because utilized in criminal enterprises then there would be zero tolerance.  It only took six months of harsh punishments before the issues surrounding guns virtually vanished over night in the new states.  In Kennedy there were only eight murders in the entire calendar year of 2020 and only one involved a gun.  In Newfoundland there were no murders and only two people even got shot.  Let`s face it, the fear of actual and real punishment is really the only option you have against a criminal as they have already demonstrated the they are not committed to societal norms and expectations.

Also, as I mentioned earlier I am not opposed to more harsh sentences for people under-taking wrong-doing, especially in relation to violent crime.  The lack of personal accountability and the ridiculous tone of the legal profession made prosecution of violent offenders almost impossible in the early part of the century.  I felt very strongly that this had to change and I fully supported the desire of Kennedy and Newfoundland to not only impose the death penalty but to utilize it.

Wednesday, December 12, 2012

Valuing Wealth

Chapter 2 - pages 25, 26

The foundation of my thinking was that those individuals who make the greatest contribution to their field should reap the greatest returns in terms of power, leadership and of course financial reward.  The other premise is that there needed to be a shift in what was considered a rewarding industry.  For example, actors can make millions of dollars for entertaining American children, while teachers make tens of thousands for teaching them.  Business leaders make millions or even billions of dollars while scientists make a fraction of that.

As a corollary thought, those who made the least contribution should not expect to receive much beyond basic sustenance.  America was founded on hard work, initiative and honesty and these types of efforts would gain reward in the immediate future.  However, those who chose to do very little or thought that life owed them a living were soon to find out that America owed them nothing.

My goal was never, nor will it ever be, to dictate the income, power or leadership that any individual could attain, but rather to have society at large play a greater role in determining what roles are worthy of substantive financial rewards, and which are not.  Just to make a simple argument, does a baseball player deserve to make five million dollars while a fireman makes fifty thousand dollars?  Many Americans of course who believe in complete freedom say yes due to their belief in freedom and the free market.  Many people will find it hard to comprehend that I agree with these principles as well.  What I set out to do though, was to have the market and society change the definition of freedom to personal responsibility and have a free market where ethics, values and contribution were considered the most valuable characteristics of successful people.

Tuesday, December 4, 2012

Two New States -- Kennedy and Newfoundland

Chapter 8  --  Kennedy and Newfoundland join the United States as the 51st and 52 states

The creation of two new US states on July 4th, 2016 was probably the single greatest legacy economically and militarily of my term as president.  With the purchase from Canada of the eastern portion of their country, which included Eastern Quebec, the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and the island portion of Newfoundland the USA headed into a period of growth and prosperity due to the expansion of American businesses, expansion of military resources, securement of natural resources, increased shipping capabilities and the ingenuity and passion of the new Americans who lived in the regions.

In hindsight, it seems ridiculous how easy the purchase of foreign lands were for the US and especially with so little fanfare and resentment of the international community.  I think this was the result of two very important, but different factors.  The first was that the area we were purchasing was of little consequence on the international stage such that no one cared all that much, and secondly that the Provincial governments and the citizens who lived in the Eastern region of Quebec and the Maritimes were so disillusioned with their Canadian federal government that they were over-whelmingly in favor of the purchase. 

Just as a quick recap, the states that we all now know as New York, Vermont, Maine, New Hampshire, Kennedy and Newfoundland were all different prior to July 4th, 2016.  New York State was extended on its eastern border to include the city of East Montreal.  Vermont was extended north to the area across from Quebec City while New Hampshire’s borders were extended following the border with Maine to Riviere du Loup.  Maine received a tremendous benefit by receiving all the land north of Kennedy to the opening of the St. Lawrence Seaway.

The region that was formerly referred to as the Maritime Provinces (New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island) became one all-new American state known as Kennedy.  The island portion of the former province of Newfoundland and Labrador became the state of Newfoundland.  Labrador became part of Quebec.  The island known as Anticosti which sits at the entrance to the St. Lawrence River was split evenly with the northern part staying as part of Canada and the southern portion becoming US territory as part of Maine.  Maine became the primary area for investment and shipping routes for the St. Lawrence which was shared fairly and equally with Canada.

Even to this day, the fact that we purchased these areas for three hundred billion dollars still amazes me considering the prosperity and ingenuity that the region has shown.  The Newfoundlanders and Kenndyites, as new American citizens, have become role models for the rest of Americans on how to live in a peaceful and orderly manner.  They demonstrate an unforeseen hospitality and demonstrate to the world a fair amount of empathy for the overall society at large.  The 51st and 52nd states of the United States of America have become not only stellar examples of US society, but have also been recognized as ideal societies around the world.

Tuesday, November 27, 2012

Two and a Half Men

Chapter 8 -- Two and a Half Men    p.195


Personally, I recall that I had been a fan of Two and a Half Men, but I always cringed somewhat with the concept of a show about a household where a child was being brought up without much supervision and the complete lack of parental discretion that was being exercised.  In Two and a Half Men, Charlie Sheen’s character was uncle to the youngster involved and he was a forty year-old alcoholic, womanizer who floated through life yet received all the rewards that society at the time could offer.  He had a beach front house in Malibu, beautiful women, nice cars, essentially the ability to be totally selfish in his actions.  His brother was considered an amusing sidekick who was divorced, broke and generally just a bit of a square.  He usually tried to do the right thing by his son, but was ostracized by his brother for being such a loser.  The son grew up on TV to be portrayed essentially as someone with no intelligence and no prospects for the future.

Upon a personal collapse by Charlie Sheen, Ashton Kutcher was put into the role.  He was a youthful internet billionaire who had the mind and social awareness of a teenager.  The son at this point was relegated to making bathroom humor and being a dopey young adult who smoked a lot of pot.  The producers of the show, at this time, chose that the father’s character should become somewhat mentally unstable and had him in and out of stressful conditions until the show went off the air in 2015.  The show tried many tactics to keep up viewers and resorted to the bottom of the barrel, I thought, when they introduced lesbian grandmothers.

Tuesday, November 13, 2012

excerpt from chapter 9 - female sexuality in the media

Chapter 9 - pages 204-205


What I had a severe disagreement with in 2012, was that sexuality had become the dominant cultural attribute that women have in the world in order to live their life and to achieve what they want.  This very much is the result of media influence and the resultant obsession with female appearance as the defining characteristic of a woman’s value.  This to me was abhorrent.  Too many girls were content with just being recognized for being attractive or sexual, and used this as their sole criteria for their position in the world.  Before continuing, let me take a moment to point out that I am not above admiring a beautiful woman and I ended up marrying one of the most beautiful, but in Natalie’s case, there was an abundance of other attributes that affirmed the original attraction and the fact that we were in love was predicated on many other aspects of her talent, intelligence, character and personality. 

I distinctly remember that I was at a coffee shop in Seattle back around 2002, and there was a magazine rack.  While I waiting for my coffee, I was looking at the magazine covers and I noticed one magazine specifically called “Complete Woman.”  I smiled to myself as I read the content headlines on the cover of the magazine.  They comprised two articles on satisfying their men in bed, two on hair and make-up tips, one on losing their winter weight and one on fashions for spring.  I remember openly chuckling to myself that the magazine was called “Complete Woman.”  Even Cosmopolitan magazine didn’t simplify women to this standard of being just attractive and a sexual object for men’s benefit.  It turned out, however, that this was exactly what was happening and girls were being influenced into adopting this self-image.

I started asking myself what was behind all this at the time and I came to realize that it was the Mom’s who were encouraging this notion and allowing their daughters to focus on their female sexuality as the core of their femininity.  This contention goes back to the notion I referred to earlier, as an entire generation of girls had been raised with the influence of Madonna in the 1980s and embraced the desire to be sexual.

Wednesday, November 7, 2012

excerpt for Chapter 2 - election results

excerpt from Chapter 2 page 37


Henderson West was elected with 55.1% of the popular vote and received the highest number of individual votes ever in the history of presidential elections in the USA. That 55.1% of the popular vote represented over eighty million American citizens. This represented a tremendous mandate and an over-whelming personal vote of confidence from the American electorate.

Tuesday, November 6, 2012

excerpt from Chapter 2 - STAND UP AMERICA election campaign

excerpt from Chapter 2 - page 33


The circumstance that I chose to be positive throughout my communications with the American public touched a lot of positive nerves as well.  As mentioned previously, by 2012 many people had been hurt by the recession and were extremely disillusioned and lacking a bit of faith in the American system.  My goal was to restore faith and confidence not only in America but in themselves.  Hence my election platform became STAND UP AMERICA.

STAND UP AMERICA became a rallying cry through the latter part of 2012 as a spirit of renewal took hold.   We as individuals have all been down at one time or another and the measure of any person’s strength is the ability to get going again.  This is the same for a nation, especially one as great as the USA.  The spirit of “standing up” for one’s own situation and then being responsible for improving ones personal state of affairs fuelled a culture of success and hard work that lead to a much more positive attitude within our borders and lead to an almost immediate recovery.

One of the difficulties we have as Americans is the ability to admit that maybe we make mistakes or that we can occasionally let ourselves down.  I’ve mentioned numerous times that we were embracing a culture of blaming others for what has happened in our individual lives but for most Americans to admit that they were wrong is just ludicrous.  Well, what I recognized and shared was that we had created our own mess through a very out-dated governmental model that was no longer relevant in the twenty-first century, a business culture that celebrated profit as the only reason for being and a citizen base that had lost its collective American spirit.  

Monday, November 5, 2012

excerpt from Chapter 10 - foreign relations

Chapter 10 - pps. 230-231


One of my key tenets of being an American is that we as Americans are the thought leaders for the modern world.  We can use this leadership to take the actions and create the strategy and platform to deliver a world in which everyone has the ability to exist in a peaceful manner and to pursue their own life objectives.  That is, if we choose to be tolerant of other systems.  Whether they be managing a farm for the state, creating the biggest company ever known to man or pursuing the word of Allah.  All to me are valuable contributions to society and should be acknowledged and respected.

In order to be a thoughtful leader for the world, however, you have to have respect for the views of others, rather than hold an overt contempt for how the rest of the world lives.  Think about it this way, how often in your life have you as an individual done something because someone forced you too?  Probably not too often, or if you did end up doing it you did it begrudgingly, the results were likely not as good as they could have been.  I always found that if you could get people to do things because they wanted to contribute and feel that they mattered, then the results will be substantially better and result in dramatic successes and exponential improvement for whatever area you are focusing on.  Once you have people motivated for success and working to the best of their abilities, then you can propose new thoughts and methodologies and philosophies to attain even higher goals.

Now, with all that being said, quite often it is advantageous for your counter-parts to know you are serious about your capabilities and your desires.  This does not mean strong-armed approaches to negotiations and conflict resolution, but rather that the inherent knowledge should be that your opponent is truly aware of your objectives.  This all sounds like threatening behavior but utilized correctly it is not.  Being number one gives you a distinct advantage.  No one ever said that everything had to have an equal result, rather just an amicable one, and one that everyone can walk away from with some level of positivity and know their role.

Following the financial collapse of Greece and the attempts by the EU to save it, Greece’s internal politics became a shambles and its people were crushed in spirit.  Greeks had been quite used to prosperity and what I will call a “relaxed work ethic” coupled with extremely generous social policies.  When the Greek government could no longer afford to keep up the social policies for the nation, there was nothing to fall back on, and the bottom fell out of the economy.  Even at the end, and with generous offers from Germany and the EU, sadly there was an unwillingness on the part of the Greek population to accept much in the way of austerity measures.  Therefore, Greece declared bankruptcy at the end of 2013.

With nowhere left to turn, the monarchy of Saudi Arabia arrived with the offer of billions in support.  In exchange, they asked for a prominent seat within the future government of Greece.  This in and of itself was not necessarily such a horrific thing on its own, but what was most troubling for people was that the Saudi’s were offering a direct cash payment and jobs to individual citizens if they converted to Islam.  

Tuesday, October 30, 2012

excerpt from Chapter 6 - flood example

Chapter 6 - page 102


One excellent example of “Constructive Capitalism” came from Home Depot who shut all their stores in the Southwest US during the Austin, Texas floods in late 2013.  As part of their relief effort, the Home Depot shipped warehouses full of supplies and sent their staff to the flooded area to immediately start rebuilding the damaged communities.  The employees were paid in full their regular salary and all their travelling expenses.

Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans (August 2005) was still a fresh memory in 2013, and no one wanted to see the same thing happening in the city of Austin, so Home Depot mobilized almost five thousand employees, delivered untold truck loads of supplies and utilized their management skills to deliver on-ground support to those affected by the floods.  Just to be clear, the Home Depot was not involved at all in the initial rescue or relief effort but rather the rebuilding efforts that followed.  Fortunately, the rescue and relief efforts were pretty well managed as opposed to Katrina, so the rebuilding process could start right away.  The Home Depot did not wait for insurance issues, local zoning discussions or the media.  They just started rebuilding and repairing people’s homes so the owners could move back in.

The effect was immediate and astounding for Home Depot.  Home Depot had forfeited a sizable portion of their marketing budget to fund this effort but certainly reaped the rewards from a business standpoint.  Their brand value sky-rocketed as did their stock price following the Austin floods.  By March of 2015, Home Depot’s stock price had almost tripled to just under $200.  When asked about their efforts at the time to make such a large commitment, the CEO said that he just could not sit back and watch people in trouble when he knew he had the resources at his finger tips to do something about it.  He pointed out that Home Depot was monstrously successful in the South Texas area and that he felt that they should contribute as much as possible.  Many share holders at the time questioned his decision as they felt that the Home Depot was going to potentially forego billions in sales as a result of the rebuilding effort and that the materials should not have been just “given-away”.  Home Depot at the time made it clear to the stock-holders, that as a part of the local business community, they had an obligation to be involved in the rebuilding of its communities whenever required.  It is not moral to profit from the suffering of its customers.  This was revolutionary corporate thinking.

Today, the Home Depot has a regular rebuilding program that goes to disaster areas all over the world and pitches in “on-ground” as required.  They are under no obligation to wait for governmental efforts other than not to interfere with rescue efforts.  

Monday, October 29, 2012

Excerpt from Chapter 4

Chapter 4 -- page 56


One of the most horrific and misguided thoughts of the time that got embedded in the American psyche was that compassion was equal to socialism or communism.

By 2009, just the comment of a compassionate governmental policy made the speaker into, at a minimum a socialist, and in the worse case, a Hitleresque demagogue who was striving to undermine the entirety of the USA.  That may sound melodramatic, but phrases like that were actually used at the time by American citizens.  I can still remember with disgust back in 2010 when President Obama was trying to implement some type of universal health insurance program so that every American citizen would have access to health care.  The shocking thing to me is that a system, which cared about the general health of all citizens, was considered akin to Nazism by some people.  Even to this day that still strikes me as the most absurd type of rhetoric.  To me and many others, it was an unconscionable misuse of our American right to freedom of speech, and I argued at the time that it should be considered hate speech.  To utilize NAZI imagery in an American political debate is simply immoral on any level.

The Republican Party and the Tea Party Movement were mostly to blame for this rhetoric, and as early as 1980, there had come a point where political expediency was the paramount goal.  Rhetoric could be founded upon any truth or mistruth and could even be what many folks would consider slanderous.  The shocking thing about this situation is that so many American citizens actually accepted this rhetoric and supported it.  I can understand that there was disillusion in the US at the time due to the 2008 economic collapse but to sink to such lows should have been offensive to so many more people.  This is why I argued so strongly that a new definition of freedom needed to be established, as we as a nation, had sunk just too far in our willingness to allow anyone to do or say whatever they chose in the political arena.

Thursday, October 25, 2012

Excerpt from Chapter 6 -- Constructive Capitalism

Chapter 6  --  page 100


One of my guiding business principles is what I referred to as “Constructive Capitalism."  Let’s face it, I got rich simply by making the world a better place.  That was always my goal from a young age.  I’ll be honest and admit that I also went into business for recognition, wealth and challenge.  However, I always operated with the philosophy that I would like to build a legacy that would be respected.  When my company developed the efficient food product known as “NutrisHouse” Bars which delivered a person’s complete nutritional daily requirements, then that really was the fulfillment of my dreams.  I ultimately have far surpassed any and all of my hopes.

Upon my company’s ultimate success in the USA and Europe, we then started developing the same food products for poorer countries.  The products for these regions cost about a third of the more consumer-oriented products that were being sold and marketed in the western areas.  Of course, everyone knows that the flavor was not as good and the packaging was not as elaborate, but the nutrition value was the same.  Every single country in the world that imported NutrisHouse Bars saw improved health almost immediately.  Even where there were still dictators and civil wars at the time, the health of the citizens improved.

 “Constructive Capitalism” evolved as a concept that in essence requires a company in order to be successful to do doing something tangibly beneficial to improve the state of the world.  This was not necessarily a unique concept that I developed, rather a progression of the changing consumer-mindset and some companies realizing that it was in their best interest to go this route in order to maximize profitability.  “Constructive Capitalism” was also not just about financial contribution either.  Just writing a check to a charitable organization seemed unsettling to most people after the success of NutrisHouse Bars where genuinely positive results were being realized.  Consumers would not accept anymore that if a company does business they just cannot hand over a payment to make them feel or in the worst case scenario, look good.  The contribution of the company must be genuine, involve the resources of the company and be done with the spirit of improving the conditions in the surrounding areas.  Even in the US, the spirit of corporate contribution became more about first-hand infrastructure development rather than continuing to do “fun runs, bake sales and raffles”, as Bill Gates put it in 2007.

Wednesday, October 24, 2012

Excerpt from Chapter 1 - changing perspective towards wealth

Chapter 1 -  Pages 8 & 9


Historically, where the personal valuation had gone awry, however, was in terms of the origin of one's individual wealth.  The mere possession of money had come to supersede the means of accumulating it.  In the early twenty-first century, any individual could accumulate wealth with no regard to the impact one made on other individuals or society. The worst aspect of that system, however, is that one could accumulate wealth at the expense of others.  This was a flawed model, as the most aggressive people and organizations, that seemingly prioritized wealth and power, ended up accumulating a disproportionate amount of both and subsequently started persecuting and taking an authoritative position in relation to those who had less.  This ultimately led to the “Occupy Movement” in 2011 and 2012.

America fortunately came to realize that accumulation of wealth at the expense of others is not wealth that should be judged as valuable or honorable. Through the “New Freedom Initiative” (NFI), wealth that was accumulated without adding value to individuals or society, started to become less respected or desired, and per my initial point regarding human judgment, “unsavory money” actually became judged as negative by a great majority of Americans.  Just as an easy example, banks in America came to refuse drug money out right by 2015.

The effect of this unsavory label was to encourage individual and corporate wealth-building as a result of benefiting a wider group of society.  It would also serve to keep those who had amassed their fortunes in a less than honorable manner from having personal influence or access to broader political, business or social institutions.  No one ever argued that any individual could not make money in America any way they liked.  What came to pass, however, was that the holding of that money did not automatically include power and influence along with it.

By the mid-2030s, ethics have since returned and are now a key component to wealth-building such that the amount of money that one accumulates is reasonably proportionate to the contribution one makes throughout that process.

In today’s world, those individuals that provide the greatest benefit to society receive the greatest return in terms of money, property, power and authority.  As a result, most people can claim a higher level of happiness and stability in 2043 than they ever could in 2013.  This claim to happiness extends well beyond American borders into parts of the world where in 2013 even having a claim on clean water was rare.  The world genuinely has improved significantly as a result of changed attitudes toward money.

Tuesday, October 23, 2012

Excerpt from Chapter 7 -- Reforming the Legal System

Chapter 7 -- Pages 139-140

Let’s get back to the legal system reforms.  Lawyers in general, had allowed their industry to get completely out of hand in the late twentieth century.  There was no sense of law in what they did and ultimately there was a distinct lack of contribution, and I’ll go as far as to say ethics in their actions.  Lawyers were in my mind in the early twenty-first century, the biggest sponges on society and sucked more value and goodness out of American culture than any other group or professional sector in history.

Lawyers had taken the concept of right to defense and due diligence to overshadow any other aspect of their being.  Right to defense meant doing anything and everything possible to create a measure of doubt in the minds of the jury.  In worst case scenarios, they went as far as to corrupt the entire spirit of the legal system.  This situation of course was vehemently opposed by me personally as I could never see the value of taking advantage of weaknesses in the system and then to utilize that as a defense.  Also, there was the need for judges and government to correct the weaknesses in the system, rather than just exacerbating them and making the weaknesses even more pronounced, such that it became an open flood gate for inequity.

The premise of defendant’s rights was way more important than the victim’s rights.  I always thought this was a gross betrayal of the American legal system that the upstanding citizen that has been hurt by some part of society is not protected at a minimum as much as the defendant.  I fully support the notion that all people are equal before the law, but the victims have already suffered some type of injury and, as a result, should not be subject to increased subjugation during the trial phase.  Hence the emphasis on punishment and retribution for crimes committed.  The victim should always have a sense of justice and compensation upon a guilty finding.

As with the deterrence for frivolous lawsuits by citizens, lawyers who participated in bringing forth a frivolous lawsuit were penalized within the context of the legal system itself.  The legal group responsible for regulating the conduct of its own members embraced a position of contribution over time when they put in place a scholarly and principled type of person to deliver this mandate.  He devised a system whereby contribution was a measured quality.  Along with the new measurement criteria, lawyers were graded as to their competency across certain areas of expertise.  This ultimately led to the legal standards for compensation as well as an access point for people who had been the victim of criminal activity.

This point system was developed so that lawyers who brought forward legitimate cases, argued them in the context of the law and instituted new thinking in terms of the statutes were graded the highest.  Lawyers who brought forward frivolous lawsuits, argued them in context of non-legal issues and relied on precedent, were summarily given lower scores.  

Friday, October 19, 2012

Henderson West's Campaign Platform

Excerpt from Chapter 2...pages 30, 31


As part of my formal announcement, the very first thing I did was state clearly and publicly that I would propose no policy platforms.  What I did actually state at the time was the following:

  •  I will deal with each issue separately or as it materializes;
  •  I will think and work in the best interests of America;
  • The American public will be more involved in government;
  • Employment in the public service will be effective and considered a privilege.

These four items were all I ever promised to do if I were elected president.

The reality of the world in 2012 was that it was just too complex and too varied to have any type of formal agenda or ideology to rely upon.  Most issues and events materialize out of nowhere and have no historical context (or in some instances too much) and are completely inharmonious with doctrines or previous legislation.  Further, most modern issues had too broad an application to generate a lot of interest by the American public.

Therefore, I decided to make no claims that “I would create jobs, institute health care, would democratize the world, no opinions of foreign issues” etc.  The people at the time were astounded that I made no election type promises, but I knew from my own observations that making promises based on a future situation that I did not have any first hand facts on was ridiculous.  For example, every American politician in the previous forty or fifty years had indicated that they would balance the budget but as soon as they get into power they have found a reason to suggest why they can’t do it.  I just didn’t see the point in what I considered pandering to the American public.

I sensed that most Americans had so little faith in political promises that I was simply asking US citizens to trust me based on my business record and the fact that they liked and respected me.  I did not want to appear to be a traditional politician and, to be honest, it was not in my nature to act like that anyway.  I just wanted people to feel that they were voting for someone who would do his best to do the right thing by America rather than just another person in the role for theie own personal benefit and power and was a puppet to their party.

Thursday, October 18, 2012

ff21st -- Excerpt from Chapter 10

Excerpt from Chapter 235


In our modern time, there is no reason for America to ever start a war of any kind.  Period.  I have stated this numerous times and many people consider me to be a bit soft as a result of this pronunciation.

However, I do see the need to maintain a military and I do see the need on occasion to step in to rectify a situation that is out of hand though we look at that as our normal doctrine of “defend, free, enforce”.

The only reason in this era that America would initiate a military action that some might consider proactive is in terms of wars of conquest.  Whether based on historical territorial disputes, or simply a desire by one country to expand its territory, this will never be tolerated by military means. 

As was initiated with the US purchase of Kennedy and Newfoundland, growth can now be obtained by mutual negotiation and or legal claims by the newly established global courts of geography.  As nationalism has become less and less of a driving force in the world, land transfers have become more and more a common occurrence and have rectified the situation whereby one region feels the need to invade another.

Finally, since the peace amnesty signed in Bangkok in 2030 regarding conflicts of this nature, land disputes have virtually dwindled away.  Countries have accepted their territorial boundaries and now more or less peacefully operate within them.

Friday, September 21, 2012

Chapter 1: continued

January 20th, 2013.   Henderson Francis West is inaugurated as the forty-fifth President of the United States of America.  This is still hard for me to write as it still seems so incredible to me as an individual, let alone as someone who has been characterized by others as the “greatest man alive”.  People magazine actually gave me that infamous title in 2018 much to my personal embarrassment.  A few of my more enthusiastic supporters have even characterized me as the “greatest man in the history of the world”.  Once again this is a completely incredulous depiction of me and one which is simply ridiculous.

I am of course flattered and equally appreciative of such extreme praise, but I still consider thoughts of this nature unequivocally strange.  I am, however, level-headed enough to see the origin of such claims.  For example, one achievement I will readily acknowledge that has had profound impact is my contribution to the overall health of the population of the planet.  I will admit freely and proudly that I have delivered a great deal in my time, and I am very receptive to the praise I receive in this area.  To me, my contribution in terms of world health is of the greatest significance.

Through my business successes, I have been able to provide to literally millions of people proper nutrition through the distribution of the universally recognized “NutrisHouse” brand.  The recipients have benefitted not only in receiving proper nutrition but also from receiving dignity, stability and an appropriate level of quality of life such that overall enhanced and peaceful living conditions became possible around the world.  In return, I have been fortunate to receive success and wealth far beyond what any single man should ever possess.  Most importantly to me though, through my wealth and success I had been offered a platform to exert influence and change for the betterment of society and this is truly the greatest reward in my life.

Some other people give me my greatest credit for my global contributions in terms of the numerous relief and charitable efforts that I have first-handedly developed and moved forward, not only in my own business world, but across the corporate and charitable landscape in general.  My efforts, in the humanitarian realm, have led to the expanded expectations of charitable organizations and even more influentially on corporations and how they operate.  Corporations were to become more tangibly involved and extremely influential wherever they conducted business rather than be merely fund-raisers, check writers or public relations opportunists.

From my perspective, my greatest contribution in the humanitarian area though was not so much in the area of physical, financial, medical or on-ground mobilization.  Rather, I take the greatest pride in being a catalyst for a new level of willingness to solve the world’s problems by private individuals and organizations in general.  Up until the year 2012, most people looked to government and charities to fulfill the humanitarian role.  I was able to leverage a truly caring mindset and attitude specifically of young Americans to spear-head a cultural shift where young citizens would actually go to parts of the world that required knowledge or relief efforts and give their time, education and muscle.  This mindset as it turned out was critical as well for these people in their employment as they strived to work with companies that reflected their spirit of generosity.

The result was that corporations came to realize that through legitimate on-ground humanitarian efforts locally and internationally, the value of their companies increased as their brand value increased.  The era of exploiting developing nations, leveraging humanitarian efforts for Public Relation improvement and profiteering as the world continued to decline was coming to an end.  I fortunately was able to show a new path that ultimately provided improved world standards and delivered increased corporate profits.

I feel comfortable in taking pleasure in the fact that my contribution in the humanitarian realm far exceeded the negatives and as a result, many of the world’s greatest inequities are being addressed, and a lot of them have been eradicated.  This is what I truly want my legacy to be though I know it will not.  I understand this though, as my efforts in restoring democratic values and instilling a contribution valuation mindset have had long-lasting profound effects on the world.

My greatest contribution in America was in terms of changing many of the institutions and fundamental thought processes so that we were able to move-forward in a ridiculously complicated and globalized world.  As I mentioned, in the early twenty-first century, most American institutions had become thoroughly inept at being able to even function let alone strive for effectiveness.  I figure that one can easily make the argument that I might never have even won the 2012 election, if the governmental processes were not as broken as they were at the time.  It was this extremely broken system that I completely despised that ultimately permitted me to win.  Life can be supremely ironic.

Tuesday, September 11, 2012

ff21st -- Chapter 1 opening

Thinking back thirty years to January 20, 2013, I have to admit that I was a little disturbed and perhaps even terribly unhappy with my situation.  There I was, a self-appointed poster-child for disillusionment with almost all institutional aspects of America.  I had grown up at the end of the twentieth century and was pretty much willing to impugn any formal organization, public institution and quite likely most existing modern mindsets and “isms.”  I was hardly an anarchist though in any way, shape or form and I of course was a huge supporter of individual freedom, but there is no way I could have seen myself as part of the process at the time.  I had prided my personal success on being able to work-around process rather than immersing myself in it.

I also was an extremely successful businessman who had accumulated wealth well into the billions.  I can’t say I was disillusioned at all about that part of America as it had been simply a matter of hard-work, open-mindedness, a big chunk of fairness, a strong vision and of course a little bit of good luck and timing along the way.

I can honestly say that I was anti-government in most of its forms at the start of the twenty-first century.  In fact, one of the hallmarks of my business success had been the ability to manage governmental process and obstacles.  I had earned a reputation as someone who did not really listen to governmental authority and regulation if a greater good was being impeded.  I pretty much held government equally inept everywhere in the world.  The USA though at the time was the worst.

Government in the early twenty-first century, especially in the United States of America involved itself mostly in the pursuit of self-interest and party politics.  The Republican and Democratic parties basically just postured and opposed each other in order to undermine, disgrace and usurp the authority of whichever party, at the time, happened to have won the previous election.  To me, it was an absolute waste of time and energy that delivered virtually no benefit to the average American.  It was an elitist system that protected the interests of the party, business interests and the wealthy.  I had no interest in politics at the time and contributed no personal energy or corporate finances to it in the years leading up to 2013.

If you had, in fact, told me a year earlier, on my forty-second birthday in 2012, that I was going to be the next president, and that thirty years later my name would be synonymous with George Washington, Abraham Lincoln or Thomas Jefferson, I would certainly have thought you to be one of the dumbest people I had ever met.  There was no way in the world, that on March 31st, 2012, that I could have imagined myself as president less than one year later.

This is why I was genuinely angry in January 2013 as I was being sworn in as the forty-fifth President of the United States of America.  I can honestly say that in the moment I really did not want the role and was wondering how I had just ruined my life.