My name is Bruce Westcott.  As a political candidate for Governor of Nevada, I herewith respectfully reply to the following questionnaire:

1) Do you intend to faithfully uphold the Constitution of the United States without exception?

A. Yes, without exception.

2) Do you favor any Constitutional amendment?  If so, please explain?

A. Yes, for one, I would prefer that Supreme Court justices' terms be limited in order to add an element of flexible application to the generational times of the day.  See Article II, Section 1, for a model definition to be extended in setting term limits for Supreme Court Justices. 

I would also like to have a clearer definition of Amendment II that would unambiguously reinforce the uninfringable right of the people to keep and bear arms.     

3) Do you favor repealing any Constitutional amendment?  If so, which of the amendments do you favor repealing?

A. Yes, I support defining Amendment XVI entirely, preferring that there be no taxation on citizens' personal wages' income in the "home of the free".  I believe that freedom, in regard to citizens, is defined as citizens not being taxed on personal income derived from working wages.  

I believe that Section 8 of the Constitution ought to be specifically defined regarding Congress' power to lay and collect taxes.  In the world of accepted modern day Accounting practices, there is a provision to "break out" financial statements in order to more clearly define certain entries.  I believe that we ought to clearly and specifically define the broadly based insertion of the word, Taxes, as contained in Section 8.     

Secondly, I believe that it is very important that Amendment XIV be revised in order to eliminate the right of those persons who enter the United States illegally for purposes of establishing themselves and their babies as automatic citizens of the United States.    

4) Will you work within your political office to begin dismantling the international oil-based economy?  If so, what would be your economic plan to replace it?

A. I believe that the United States dodged an economic bullet during the recent European Union referendum vote that would have established a shifting of international financial and currency value based on a specific commodity: Oil.

I believe in the elimination of fiat currency in exchange for the return of a real value standard.     

4) In the same context, will you work to implement alternative energy programs in the United States? If so, what will you do in this regard?

A. The State of Nevada possesses every currently conceivably known raw source elements for the purpose of developing and delivering clean, efficient and affordable energy to Nevada's homes, businesses, schools and government buildings.  As Governor of Nevada, I will immediately begin developing such broad based energy sources, including requesting the state legislature to purchase the Nevada Power Company and it's parent company, Sierra Pacific Corporation.  Currently, these energy providing public companies are dependent on constantly raising the value of their corporate stock worth.  The only method of raising corporate worth in these economic circumstances is for the companies to constantly raise rates charged to consumers of their energy products.  This is a recipe, in fact, a mandate of corporate stockholders, for constant inflationary consequences.  The providing of shared requisite necessities, such as water and energy, ought not be beholden to subjectively narrow and privately held - and inflationary - corporate stockholders. 

5) Do you favor having a religious-based government?

A. Absolutely not.  I believe that government is government and that religion is religion, and ought not be integrated as an operating principle. 

6) Do you favor the United States having an open border policy?  If so, please explain?  If not, what will you do to protect our national borders against illegal intrusion of any kind from any source?

A. I do not favor the United States having an open border policy.  The United States has a National Guard, which I would use to prevent, by punishment, any illegal intrusion by persons entering the United States.

I would also prevent the importing of socially harmful addictive drugs, such as cocaine and heroin, into the United States.  That said, I would move to eliminate the costly consequences of marijuana laws' enforcement.

My opinion is that if a person cares to inject Draino into one's system, I do not want to pay taxes for the purpose of "rehabilitating" that person.   

7) Do you have a plan to revise and improve our current federal Education system?  If so, please present your plan.

A. Contained within my political "Platform of Sensible Ideas and Solutions", is a "5 Point Plan for Education" (introduced in 1998 during my first Nevada gubernatorial candidacy), that begins by restructuring the entire education system both statewide and nationwide. We will soon have the Platform again published in our forthcoming Web site.

8) Would you work to enforce stringent automobile mileage and environmental requirements?  What would you do, if anything, in those regards?

A. Anything that I could do to encourage the elimination of addictive oil dependence in the United States, while reducing harmful engine emissions into the world environment, would receive my full support. 

9) Please explain your position and/or plan regarding international and national environmental protections.

A. Again, we must correct the harmful environmental effects of gaseous engine emissions throughout Planet Earth. 

10) If you hold political office, what would you do, if anything, in reducing government agencies within your jurisdictional authority?

A. As Governor of Nevada, I will meet with every single government manager and demand that all government agencies be evaluated and micromanaged on a cost basis, including eliminating redundancy practices, and consideration for the possible integration or total elimination of government agencies.

Any Welfare, Drug Rehabilitation and/or free medical and pediatric services that are provided to unworthy illegal aliens will be eliminated. 

There shall be strict enforcement of immigration laws in Nevada.  Particularly, I will demand harsh punishment for crimes against citizens of the United States perpetrated by illegal aliens.

As a result of my adamant stance against illegal immigration, Nevada will have less taxation expense used for illegal alien prosecution, and more dedicated funding for our education system, and the care of our own needy and worthy citizens.        

11) Will you support or reduce Welfare programs?

A. It irks me to stand in a checkout line watching able-bodied men and women purchase goods and receiving cash that is provided by "Welfare", i. e., paid for by taxpayers, funding.

I will also crack down on rampant fraud and other misuse of taxpayers' money.   

12) Would you favor changing the federal taxation system from being wage income based to a system of consumer based taxation?  If so, please explain.  If not, please explain.  In either case, what is your taxation plan for government to receive taxation revenues?

A. I believe that the only fair and equitable personal income taxation method is to create a consumer based taxation plan.  A consumer based taxation method insures that Mr. Drug Dealer and other forms of illegally derived income is taxed equally and fairly.  Once the $billions of underground commerce is taxed equitably, the result will be less taxation on legal commerce, including goods and services. 

13) What government agencies, if any, would you eliminate or expand?

A. See the above determination to properly evaluate and prudently manage all government agencies.   

14) Do you favor or oppose the war in Iraq?

A. Prior to the invasion of Iraq, I publicly warned that such a campaign would be "ill-advised", mainly on the basis that our entire military forces in the Middle East would be highly vulnerable to potentially devastating counter attack and insurgency.  Had Sadaam possessed nuclear weapons, I warned that there could have been a strategically placed military distribution of such weapons that literally would have annihilated allied forces throughout the regional land and sea deployments.

Our stated objective was to avenge the terrorist bombings on our national soil.  If that prosecution meant that we would pursue the enemy into the mountains of Pakistan, Iran or Iraq, or wherever terrorists and their camps were located, then so be it.

President Ronald Reagan used a phrase that I embrace: "You can run, but you cannot hide".  However, I would have more fully prosecuted the redress, political consequences be damned.  The United States of America would be internationally respected for it's military force capability and resolve to avenge the murder of it's citizens.

Justifable retaliation by military force is internationally understood, respected and accepted.  Unilateral military invasion of any sovereign nation, having no proven justification, is painfully and clearly not accepted as sound and moral international foreign policy for any sanely civilized nation to undertake. 

15) Do you have a plan for the "stay the course" continuation of the war in Iraq?  Do you have a plan for the withdrawal of the military occupation of Iraq?  Do you favor a "Marshall Plan" for the reconstruction of Iraq?  Do you think that the American taxpayer is fully responsibility for the reconstruction of Iraq?  Do you think that the American taxpayer ought to be reimbursed for any such reconstruction of Iraq?  Do you favor and support the current version of the Iraqi Constitution?  How would you propose amending the Iraqi Constitution?  Do you rather favor that the Iraqis install their own form of government, even if it means them having religious based government that would be in alliance with any other government in the Middle East region?

A. Well, the milk is spilled, isn't it? 

I wrote an article, "As Arabs Negotiate", subtitled, "While their Constitutional and security forces' formations are taking years of development, our precious men and women are being killed and mutilated, sacrificed at the alter of Big Oil and Special Interests", in which I reasoned that there is nothing that the United States could possibly do to ultimately prevent the imminent internal battles destined for the falsely defined borders within geographically accepted Iraq. 

So, any withdrawal decision is merely based on a time factor of either now or later.  The sooner the withdrawal the better for the imminent occurrences, militarily, politically and morally. 

The Middle East has always had, and will always continue to have, it's own peculiar set of indigenous religious and cultural circumstances.  There is no form of military occupation that will outlast or change those perpetual sets of historical conditions.

As for a "Marshall Plan" for rebuilding the physical damages caused by the invasion, I believe that, yes, the United States ought to provide the necessary funding for the reconstruction of basic Iraqi infrastructures.  The American public generally approved it's political leadership to invade, therefore ought to be responsible for the reconstruction of war-torn Iraq.  If the American public has a problem in this respect, let the American public hold it's political leadership responsible.  This was no small blunder.  This was a calculated deception of the American people by it's political leadership.  Actually, I believe that the leadership and it's corporate buddies should be fined responsibly for the reconstruction funding. 

16) Do you favor supporting Israel, either militarily or economically, if at all?

Israel and the United States of America are inseparable allies.

That said, it is important that allies, whether personal or between nations, should be honest with each other.  The United States must be firm in it's policies with it's allies, particularly with Israel in convincing the Israel people and it's government that the modern nation of Israel was created on the basis of seized occupation, regardless of historical religious content.  Jews throughout the world ought to have, and are entitled to have, it's share of the sacred Holy Land in the Middle East.  So there must be reasonable understanding and compromise on this issue throughout the Middle East by all of it's occupants.  After all, regardless of iconic veneration, the skin surface of the God-given, Creationist or otherwise, planet, Earth, is undeniably occupied by certain known living species, and therefore there must be an understanding and respect given or granted

for the sharing of this - again, falsely - parceled planet. 

My question is: What intelligent being would want these incessant wars?  Why can't we walk down the pathways on Earth peacefully?  Admittedly, separation by definition is required along certain religious, cultural, and yes, racial divide and differences.  But to have but one simple acceptance of those facts through one simple concept, that being respect, is all that is required for peaceful and harmonious, rather briefly, I add, existence on this fragile peel, called the surface of the Earth. 

Personally, I prefer to be with my own tribe, including any varying degree or element of intellectual level.  We all do.  But in my heart there must be space or allowance for respectful tolerance of my fellow species.  I do not need to invite everyone into my home.  Nor do any of us, and that includes varieties of other species.  But when I walk outside of my home, or cave, I walk among all of creation.  My God requires of me to be respectful.  That isn't too much for my God to expect from me in exchange for His granting to me of an incredible personal experience called life.   

17) What is your position regarding foreign intervention either militarily or economically?

A. I believe that I have explained that unilateral and/or unjustified interventionist foreign policy in any form ought not be the Foreign Policy of the United States. 

18) What is you position regarding American aid other than in natural disaster circumstances?

A. I believe that American aid of any kind outside of the United States ought to be funded by benevolent donations and privately funded charitable organizations.

I further believe that funding for American welfare, homelessness, pregnancy, abortion, drug and assorted other national programs are unconstitutional and not representative of the American taxpayer. 

19) What is your position regarding international and regional trade agreements, either current or proposed?

A. I would scrap every single international trade agreement across the board now in existence.  If it is determined that any international or regional trade agreement makes sense for the United States to be engaged in, or a party to, it would be on the basis of fair, equitable and balanced trade.  And it would be on the basis of parity of real currency values. 

20) Do you favor American nationalism in regard to economics, jobs and protectionism, such as tariffs on imported goods and services?  Why so, and/or, why not?

A. See the above.

21) Do you believe that a New World Order plan exists?  Do you believe that such a plan is already set in motion?  Would you resist such a plan either real or perceived?  If so, how?

A. Yes, I am convinced that there is an elitist economic plan for a New World Order that I would resist in exactly the same manner as our forefathers of this Great Republic would have resisted. 

22) Are you an actively engaged member of any political third party?  If so, in what respect and what do you propose to further the by-laws and goals of your respective political party?

A. Proudly honored by the national committee of the Reform Party USA, I am chairman of the Reform Party of Nevada.

It is my goal to assist in rebuilding the Reform Party in Nevada and to represent the Reform Party of Nevada as it's gubernatorial candidate in 2006.     

23) Do you favor having a National Third Party convention?  If so, would you become active in creating such a national third party convention?  And if so, what would you propose as to outline an agenda for such a third party convention?

A. I am very active as member of the founding committee of the National Third Party Convention. 

The stated purpose of convening the National Third Party Convention 2006 is to bring an informed awareness of legitimately nominated third party political candidates to the attention of the American voting public. 

24) Would you be truthful in addressing and answering your constituency?

A. Yes. 

Sincerely and respectfully submitted:

Bruce Westcott

(Coming soon: brucewestcott.org)