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.

Chapter 1: continued

January 20^th, 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.

The Dilemma of Islam

The issue that we are facing with the Islamic religion is a major one.  Whether or not religious freedom can lead to a complete overhaul of the tenets that our nation was founded upon.

By allowing Muslims to enter our society we essentially run the risk that at some point in the future this group becomes powerful enough to usurp the fundamental nature of America.

For example in Britain, a recent poll was conducted within the Muslim community and 40% of the respondents indicated that they would like to see Sharia Law imposed.  Right now, that number does not constitute a large number of voters but it clearly articulates the point for the future and one that we in America have to consider.  Is it right to allow a group of people who are fundamentally opposed to the American way of life into the country?

The First Amendment of the Constitution offers religious freedom as a fundamental right of humanity.  However, if those claiming religious freedoms are not interpreting that doctrine in a manner consistent with freedom but rather pro ports a moral code and political direction that undermines the basic philosophy of individual freedom then should it be opposed?  I would say 100% absolutely.


The Constitution further suggests that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of a religion..." though it does not go as far as separating church and state as many people believe  It is obvious that religious fundamentals are not universally shared but the basis of individual freedom is an ability to make independent decisions.  Any group or organization that disagrees with this view point should be resisted in their access to American institutions or their ability to construct their own.  Individuals would be able to worship as they choose but any attempt to organize to undermine principals of freedom and independence should be opposed.


It is not necessary to ban Muslims from moving to the USA but efforts should definitely be made to curtail them from gaining any type of influence.  For example, several steps can be taken at this point to curtail an emergent political movement that supports Sharia Law or strives to change the nature of America.


The first would be the banning of any Muslim from holding political office at any level.  Two, limiting of mobility within the nations borders upon entry.  Thirdly, the holding back of US citizenship until individuals have demonstrated an ability to appreciate the principals of the western world and finally the out right ban of Muslim schools.


Though these thoughts sound counter-intuitive to the basic fundamentals that the USA holds paramount, keep in mind that America has only ever had to deal with fundamental opposition to freedoms on this scale once before and that lead to a Civil War.  The goal is not to limit individual freedoms rather ensure that the thinking and principals that have allowed the world to thrive continue unabated by a religious/political movement at the institutional level.

Why Does Justice Take So Long?

The entirety of the judicial process needs to be shortened such that criminal activity is dealt with in a reasonable and effective manner.

The most important thing that has to happen is that the time lines associated with the process must be shortened.

No criminal trial should ever last more than a year from the time of the infraction. This is possible if the following tactics are implemented. One, lawyers on either side are compensated by determining the truth. Two, the police are given broader abilities to investigate crime and to collect evidence and three the judiciary simply works harder.

Conceptually, the idea of plausibility has to be eliminated.  The notion of reasonable doubt has clouded the legal system as defense lawyers create any myriad of arguments to create an image of innocence. They genuinely create artificial circumstances to cast doubt on the guilt of the accused with no bearing on the facts at all. This should be considered a highly unethical and a catastrophic abandonment of legal principal.

Also, the legal system seems more than willing to take into account mitigating circumstances. Why? If the crime is committed than punishment is warranted.  Though one can argue as to the compassionate nature of our society by considering the factors that might lead to violent crime they should not be admitted as they just cloud the issue at hand i.e. guilt or innocence and take up time.

The first step to changing the system is to have lawyers on both sides of the process paid by how well they arrive at the actual circumstances of the case.  The notion of guilt and innocence needs to go away.  The defense is obligated to provide evidence it collects and witness statements including those from the accused into the trial.  The defense should never be considered a process to create excuses for the action, twist the facts and in worse case even create lies.  The accused also needs to be required to take the stand in all trials.


Lady Justice is symbolic of being blind to the equitable nature of who is the accused rather than being blind to the truth itself.  The framers of the Constitution envisioned a system of judicial equality not one where the truth is incidental.

The Presidency is Undemocratic

Obama or Romney.  It won't matter in the least.

Once again the lack of choice is testament to the undemocratic nature of the American political system.  On one hand you have a candidate who has failed miserably to inspire America and stem the downfall of the economic system and on the other hand you have a candidate who is an opportunist who has zero credibility in terms of leadership.  There really is no preferred choice.

The Presidency was designed to be a powerful leadership position for the entirety of the USA.  It was to be a position of intelligence, might, and most of all a defender of the Constitution and the multitude of freedoms that the USA was trying to establish in the world.  In our current era, the Presidency should be the number one defender of these same liberties.

The oath of office makes the Presidents role extremely clear.  


"I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Over the years this oath has essentially been abandoned by the office of the President.  The Presidency has devolved into being merely a position for the top party representative.  This person ultimately is beholding and controlled by the parties themselves and the Constitution has been forsaken.  Therefore, the President does not represent America.

The democratic ideals and principals of the US have been completely usurped.

Churches: Time To Pay Up

Institutional religion and non-profit organizations receive billions of dollars each year tax free. This money or portions thereof have to be taxed.

Though the practice of taxation is out of hand in the USA right now, new sources of revenue have to be found to improve the situation. If a nominal federal tax rate of 5% of all revenue collected was taxed this would be a good place to begin reducing the monumental budget deficit that is now in place. States would have the opportunity to choose whether an incremental tax would be levied up to no more than an additional 5%.

One hallmark of American society is the freedom of religion and this is of course guaranteed within the Constitution. Freedom in this instance, seems to have come to mean complete freedom to operate from a formal obligation to the overall American way of life. Churches benefit from the taxation and infrastructure that the federal system provides so it is only fair that they should contribute financially.

Many would argue that religious institutions should be tax-exempt due to their civic contribution and non-profit status. The idea that non-profit organizations are tax exempt is ridiculous. I would suggest that any non-profit organization that has assets and/or paid employees should be taxed. Employees already pay income tax and volunteers would of course not pay due their lack of income.  Therefore, individual members of these institutions and organizations would not be affected at all.

Also, in order to encourage greater spending against community charitable efforts, any funds that are utilized directly as part of a community charitable effort would be 100% exempt from taxation thus lowering the institutions overall obligation. However, funds that are directed for operational expenses, payroll, marketing, fund-raising, assets and investments will be taxed.

The taxation does not have to be universal for every organization or religion. The expectation is that if a religious group or a non-profit organization holds property as part of their assets or has paid employees then taxation would be mandatory, though at the much reduced rate from private sector organizations.  Any organization that operates on a community level and has assets less than $50,000 and revenue less than $50,000 per year would not be taxed thus encouraging locally-minded and individual efforts.