Spread the love


by Sharon Rondeau
As governor, he has pledged to challenge Obama's eligibility

(May 5, 2010) — The following is the second half of an interview with Gino DiSimone, independent candidate for Nevada governor.  Part I can be found here.  Gino’s campaign website is here.

SHARON:  Regarding political parties, you said earlier that they are not serving the people as they should.  Why do you think that is?

GINO:  I believe the parties are corrupt.  They have failed.  There is so much going on behind the scenes that we don’t know, and that evidence is overwhelming.  However, while the evidence is overwhelmingly against the parties, the masses of constituents are constitutional.

SHARON:  So generally speaking, would you say the masses of constituents are patriotic as well as constitutional?

GINO:  Patriotic and constitutional, although they don’t understand the Constitution because that piece of their education has been removed.  Once they start hearing it, it’s picking up steam.

SHARON:  Just going back to what you said previously, you said there are one or two blatant groups that are not constitutional.  You had said the gays and the abortionists.

GINO:  The gay and lesbian community is absolutely not constitutional.  They pick and choose whatever part of the Constitution they like and the rest of it, they rewrite the rules.

SHARON:  What do you think should be done about these two groups?  Planned Parenthood is all over the country.  What can you do in Nevada about it?

GINO:  Regarding the gay and lesbian community, within the state of Nevada, the voters got together and they said, “Marriage is between a man and a woman only,” and that has been locked into our constitution.  On the other side of the fence, last year or maybe two years ago, the legislature put forth a domestic partner law that essentially said that if you’re living together, you get to enjoy the benefits of health care, etc., under insurance policies.

SHARON:  And that’s same-sex or opposite-sex, right?

GINO:  Yes, both.  So the legislature did that, and Governor Gibbons actually vetoed that, and the legislature went back and got enough votes to override the veto.  But for me, it’s quite simple:  the gay and lesbian community have the right to leave; that’s about the best right they’ll get out of me.  I think Amsterdam appreciates their lifestyle; they can probably go to Europe if they like.

SHARON:  There aren’t too many people running for any public office who will come out and say that.

GINO:  That’s what I mean when I said I can’t sit and grandstand any longer.  They’re afraid to speak the truth, they’re afraid to speak what’s right, and you get wishy-washy people in place, and guess what:  they go whichever way the wind is blowing, and every now and then they’ll take a stand on something, just to get a vote.  Here’s my position:  I don’t need or want the gay or lesbian vote.  So please vote for somebody else.

As far as the abortion position goes, that is a violation of the security of the unborn child, because that is a future human being who has a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and I will protect that right for the living as well as the unborn.  You see, the unborn child is a slave to the mother, and we had slavery back in the day, and we abolished it, and we said, those people have rights.  We will grant them the same rights as every other person.  It doesn’t matter what their skin color is; if they are going to abide by the U.S. Constitution and follow the rules to become a citizen, they are citizens, and we will support them, and protect them and give them life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The unborn child is a slave to the mother, and that unborn child deserves the protection that we gave to the slaves back then.  He or she deserves to be liberated the same way and deserves exactly the same right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

SHARON:  You had talked about lowering taxes by the end of your fourth year.  Could it be done any sooner than that?

GINO:  It absolutely could be done sooner.  It will take about two years before the surplus is in place.  After about two years, then we can start trimming the taxes down here and there, and by the fourth year, we might have the taxes reduced by an easy 30 or 40%, but you have to understand that in the state of Nevada, there is no personal income tax, so the taxes that we’re referring to are taxes on the gaming community, taxes on tourism, taxes on everything we buy and sell, tires, you-name-it.   So the objective is to balance your budget and lower your taxes.

Now, there are two ways to do that:  you can increase your revenue and then you balance your budget, and if you increase your revenue through a large surplus, then you don’t really need the taxes any more, so you can start cutting those back.  But that’s a little bit irresponsible; that says, “Hey, however we’re spending money now, we’re doing a fine job.”  That’s absolutely incorrect.  We are fraudulent with our money.  So this is a two-pronged process.  Satisfying the fiscal problem is only 50% of the solution.  The other 50% of the solution is being financially responsible.  Put those two together, and by the fourth year of my gubernatorial seat, it is absolutely reasonable to say we’ll cut our taxes in half, maybe more.

Now, the revenue plan is not what people think it is being in the executive branch of a corporation.  Corporations have to live off of making money, and they can’t force people to buy their goods and services unless you’re in the pharmaceutical industry and you’ve got big government behind you.  But in standard America, you have to produce a product or service that people want.  It enriches the life of the citizen, so he buys it; it gives them value.  If the state could think of certain products or services that provide that value to the citizens, not a need or have-to-have; it’s a hey, I want that; it makes my life better.  If the state could do that, that is a winning opportunity.  And there is at least one (I can think of four or five) but at least one, opportunity that the states can offer their citizens and the citizens can choose to buy it or not.  And I’m betting my revenue plan is saying, very conservatively, I think one out of 20 will buy it.  The data suggests probably one out of six will buy it.  So I’m definitely conservative in my numbers.

SHARON:  Which would mean that people would feel as though their dollar goes farther.

GINO:  They get benefit from buying a product or service that the state has to offer.  They don’t have to have it; it’s not a part of their need to live in society, come and go as they please or do whatever they want.  And incidentally, it’s not marijuana, so I’m not going to offer drugs for sale or anything like that.  Many people have said, “He’s going to legalize marijuana.”  Well, that’s a whole different discussion and has nothing to do with the revenue plan.

SHARON:  So your plan could be implemented sooner than the fourth year, which would give Nevadans reason to hope.

GINO:  Let’s talk about that.  My revenue plan could be implemented as soon as three months’ time.  The state can start realizing revenue.  They probably won’t realize the full billion dollars until about nine months if it’s implemented in three months.  Maybe sooner.  If it takes 12 months to implement because we have to put certain infrastructure in place or something like that, that’s fine.  Within 18 months, we’ll be at the billion-dollar mark.

SHARON:  What changes would the average Nevadan citizen have to make?  Would they have to do anything to make this work for them?

GINO:  Absolutely nothing.  And when you see the revenue plan, you’ll say, “My gosh, that’s so simple!  This is not rocket science; this is standard business economics.  As a businessman, an engineering manager or marketing manager, you have to ask yourself a couple of things:  what is it out there that people want and need that enriches their lives that they’re willing to buy?  Is there anything out there?    And that’s where you start.  And you try not to compete with other activities.  The worst thing that could happen is if the states start competing with private industry.  So you stay away from those.

SHARON:  That sounds very well thought-out.  I wanted to ask you about the SNWA on your website.  Has that plan been implemented?  I know you said it was approved, but has it actually begun?

GINO:  Yes, it has; not completely, but they’ve started that work.  They’re trying to sneak it through the legislature to bypass the Supreme Court because they’re going to destroy the land.  It’s an environmental mistake, and it’s a huge financial overspend.

SHARON:  You mentioned that they paid four times for the land what they should have.

GINO:  That’s right.  So they’re paying $80,000,000 for $20-30,000,000-worth of land, and you have to say, “Well, who’s getting the extra $50,000,000?  That’s a lot!  Who’s pocketing the money?

SHARON:  And is this taxpayer money?

GINO:  Yes.

SHARON:  No private money at all?

GINO:  That’s correct.  It comes from the Water Authority.

SHARON:  And you mentioned a “Mr. Reid” being on that commission.  Is that the same Rory Reid who is running for governor?

GINO:  Yes, that is correct.  He is on the commission to study the plan presented by the Water Authority and  was determined that this was a great plan, let’s go forward with it.  They did not do an environmental analysis by the standards which the BLM generally does when somebody wants to do something – which is another question  – why isn’t the Bureau of Land Management asking, “Hey, are you guys doing the correct environmental analysis?”  But the Bureau of Land Management turned their head the other way for some reason; I don’t know if it was innocent or intentional.  So yes, Rory Reid was on that commission and approved it all, and he was addressed by a concerned citizen who happened to be a Democrat, who happened to like Rory Reid and wanted to vote for him and started asking him, “Did we do an environmental study?  Did we look at other alternatives?  Can we trade California for some of the water that California gets out of the Colorado River, and we’ll build them a desalinization plant and they can have a lot of water in the future and we’ll just take a little bit more that we need out of the Colorado River.  Did anybody explore that?  It’s very inexpensive. But the response was, “No, that was never explored; this is the best plan there is.”  So the very same person started scratching his head, saying, “Well, this isn’t very smart.  And by the way, Mr. Reid, did you know that they’re trying to get this through the Special Session for the legislature to get this passed without having the Supreme Court oversight?  And yes, of course, he knew that, but he was very careful and politically-correct about his answer.  So all of that is in the blog – it’s there.

SHARON:  You mentioned that some people had asked you about launching an investigation.

GINO:  I was asked, as a governor, would I launch an investigation and stop it, and I said, “Absolutely.”  There are two pieces to this whole economic recovery:  one is introduce a revenue plan which brings new money into the state, and even if that satisfies your budgetary crisis, it doesn’t solve your problems.  The other half is to go back and look at the fraudulent spending, and this falls well within the purview of fraudulent spending.

SHARON: Do you think most of the citizens of Nevada are aware of this?

GINO: No, I do not think the citizens of Nevada are aware of this at all.

SHARON: Would that be one of the first things you would do if you are elected?

GINO: Yes, of course; that would go public. Right now, you don’t hear a lot of these things in the newspapers or on the web or in the mainstream media, so part of my revenue plan that I’m going to generate revenue from is to take a piece of that budgetary component and say, “OK, now I want a third party, I’m going to put it out for bid to mainstream media in all the venues of media that would include all the social networking, all the internet stuff, the cable television, any airwaves possible, and all of the newspapers:  I want this information always made public, and I want to hire a company to do that.  Let’s get information out to the public.  Now, if the public chooses to turn its head, there isn’t a lot I can do about it.  But, right now, for someone in the public to say, “Hey, what’s going on?”  Try to find that in the newspaper, try to dig that out of the web.  It’s difficult!

SHARON: It seems there are a lot of things going on everywhere that the citizens do not know.

GINO: That’s right.  And I said this, by the way, at one of my talks: full, open disclosure; and somebody got up and said, “Oh, yeah, just like Obama, right; I don’t believe that,” and walked right out (laughs).

SHARON: But you didn’t use that magic word, “transparency!”

GINO: No, I did not, but I did say, “here’s another opportunity for jobs and employment.”  This is going to be contract services.  There’s going to be a small group of small business that’s going to take this contract services.  There will be probably 30 people who are going to be employed because of it.

SHARON: What is your stance on the Second Amendment?

GINO: I’ve set up booths at gun shows, and I’m exceptionally pro-gun.  I have a little motto:  a gun in every home, a gun on every hip.  I think every citizen should have a gun, and I don’t believe that we should have concealed weapons permits required. We should go to a similar system like Alaska and Vermont.  And I’m going to push that.  But that’s not to say we should not have training; we should still have training. There should be a whole certification process for those who want to be skilled in the art.  But the last line of defense against any corrupt government, against any invasion of a foreign power, against any crook or criminal who may come to your doorstep, is the citizen.  They’re the last line of defense, and they should be well-armed to defend themselves.

SHARON: Have you had a lot of firearms training yourself?

GINO: I’m former military, so I’ve had my share.  I don’t go out and shoot regularly; I’ve been out of the military for quite a long time; I just take my kids out on occasion and we just keep the weapons warm and remember how it feels when you shoot it.  So I’m not an avid shooter and I’m definitely not a hunter, although I fish every now and then.  But my wife carries, I carry, my kids will when they’re not at work, and it’s the right thing to do.  I would like to see every person carrying a handgun on his hip.  I think the crime in our streets and neighborhoods would drop substantially; and guess, what:  there is FBI data that supports that.  That’s a little bit “out there,” and it’s probably not going to happen in our society, but I certainly want the citizens to have the freedom to choose that.  If they don’t want to carry, fine; they don’t have to, but the government should not infringe on that right which is embedded in our constitution.

SHARON: Does Nevada presently have restrictions on gun rights that you would change?

GINO: Yes, it has a concealed-carry weapons permit that I would eliminate.

SHARON: You mentioned on your website that you would “hire back the firefighters.”  Could you tell me a little bit about what happened there?

GINO: This is a heartbreaking situation.  Because of our budgetary problems, they have laid off firefighters and other security personnel in an effort to make some sort of financial recovery or balancing the budget.  And what does that do?  It puts the people at risk.  If there is a catastrophe, the first responders are usually the firefighters.  Why should we do that to our citizens?  For the life of me, I can’t get that.  So the answer to that is, you keep them close by, and as soon as I become governor, they’re back on the job.

SHARON: Switching topics, what about illegal immigration?

GINO: For me, there’s a very simple answer to illegal immigration:  anybody who puts another demographic or diverse culture in front of Americans is not suited to run for office.  Any person who says that Americans should be able to absorb the cost for these others does not belong in office.  So the answer is, America first, Americans first.  That’s it, and it is extremely frustrating to me, because I’m a Christian –  incidentally, I have two books written that are unpublished about the Bible – to hear Mr. Huckabee get up and say, “Well, we should not punish the children for the sins of their parents.”  He’s trying to show compassion and politically satisfy two opposing concepts.  That is a very, very poor thing to do, and if anybody tries to say, “Hey, we should have compassion because the Bible says this, that and the other thing,” they are making a big mistake, and that frustrates me.

SHARON: In what situation did Mr. Huckabee say that?

GINO: He pushed the fact that we should not punish the children for the sins of their parents.  In the Bible, if a parent sins, the child doesn’t have to pay the penalty for the parent’s sins.  That’s where he’s coming from.  It’s a very Christian, ethical thing to do, but that is not the same as the what the Constitution says.  The 14th Amendment says, “If you weren’t born here, then you’re not a citizen; if you weren’t born of a parent who is a citizen, then you’re not a citizen, even if you’re born on this soil.”  That’s the correct understanding of the 14th Amendment.  It was put in place because of slavery; those people were forced on our shores at gunpoint, and we compelled them to stay or we would kill them.  So once we abolished slavery, the right thing to do was to grant them citizenship, and we did that.  And that was the nature of the 14th Amendment, and further, it expanded and said, “If your parents are citizens, then that’s how you get to be a citizen.”

SHARON: Would you like to see the 14th Amendment repealed?  I’ve read that there is a movement which seeks to repeal it as if it never happened.

GINO: If I’m not mistaken, that movement has been put in place because there is no more slavery; that is long out of our history.  So their justification is since there’s no slavery, why do we have this?  The problem with that is that the 14th Amendment provides protections for that illegal alien process.  It says, very clearly, that the parents must be  citizens for a person to be a citizen.  So I think repealing it is a mistake because of those protections.  However, the Supreme Court has, on many occasions, misinterpreted the 14th Amendment. They’ve gone both ways, by the way. It depends which on which court case and which Supreme Court you actually listen to, which means that there’s a problem with the Supreme Court because any high school person can read that, think it through, and recognize that your parent has to be a citizen or you can’t be.

Now if a high school person’s child or youth can do that and understand it, why do we need the Supreme Court to tell us otherwise?

SHARON: But a lot of times, the 14th Amendment is misinterpreted, and now it’s gotten to the point where illegal aliens are crossing the border, and someone has a baby on our soil and that baby is considered a citizen.

GINO: That’s an incorrect application of the 14th Amendment.  You’re absolutely right.

SHARON: So what you’re saying is that there’s no problem with the 14th Amendment as written, but the misinterpretation has been the problem?

GINO: That’s correct.  The misinterpretation by the Supreme Court for what reason?  There’s a motivation behind their misinterpreting it.  They didn’t do it by accident.

SHARON: What do you think that motivation is?

GINO: For whatever reason, they wanted to have illegal aliens becoming citizens; I don’t know.  However, it doesn’t matter what they want; the 14th Amendment is quite clear.

SHARON: It would seem so.

GINO: There’s another item that we haven’t discussed, and that is the role of a U.S. Senator.  Originally, in the First Continental Congress, the role of a senator was to represent the state.  Then, as time went on, Madison came along and a bunch of other very smart men, and said, “You know what?  within the federal government, we have state representation through the senators, but we don’t have the people’s representation.  We need to come up with a new congress structure that gives us both the people represented in Congress as well as the state.  So they came up with the bicameral Congress, and they divided it up such that there is the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senators.  So the U.S. Senators were there to communicate the desires and concerns of the state; the representatives were there to communicate the desires and concerns of the citizens within their districts only.  They weren’t supposed to do what they thought was right for the whole country, etc.  So the role of a U.S. Senator is to communicate the concerns of the state.  For the first 100+ years, those senators were appointed by the state legislatures.  And they did that for a very good reason, because the senator had to be accountable to the state legislature, who put them in office.

Then American politics took a turn around the 1900s, and some states did not even appoint senators.  So the people became very upset and frustrated because there wasn’t fair representation and they felt as if the state was being gypped, and there was a big uproar.  Ultimately that turned into the 17th Amendment, where the senators are now voted in by the people.  However, the role of a senator never changed.  Their duty in life, their foremost, sole purpose for living as a senator is to communicate the concerns and wishes of the state legislature.  That’s it.

Well, they’ve transformed now, and you see what we have.  So we have a couple of choices:  we can try to repeal the 17th Amendment, which probably is not going to go very far. However, I have learned recently that the state legislatures possess documentation showing that the 17th Amendment was never properly ratified, so that should be addressed.

I have written a thesis on how the state can control their senators, and it is a process whereby the state can recall its senators.  Currently, there’s a handful of states, about 18 of them, where the people have a process to recall their senators, and for the rest of the states, once someone is elected as a senator, they’re in.

SHARON: For six years, anyway.

GINO: That’s right.  So what happens when you have the condition we have today where very few senators are actually representing the state legislature?  I think the last I heard was that about 16% of the senators actually represent the legislature.  The rest of them are doing whatever they think their party should do.  So what do you do?  What is the state’s recourse?  So that’s what I’m going to drive through our legislature after I put it out in the public domain for the people to look at it.  But I have a process whereby the state can recall its senators.  So the legislature and the governor can get involved and say, “The senator is breaching my security responsibility for my citizens; I want that person out, or I want him fired, or an investigation.”  The governor can do that.  The legislature can say, “The senator is putting in legislation that is going to violate some of these concerns regarding our legislative responsibilities; I want that person out.”  So the governor and the legislature now have a process whereby they can recall their senators.  Then we get back to the founding purpose and nature of a senator.

SHARON: Would the people of the state have to vote on that?  How would it be implemented?

GINO: No, the people do not vote or ratify it. The people have their recall process, so if the people are dissatisfied with a senator, they can exercise their current recall process, which exists in Nevada.  However, because the responsibility of a senator is to communicate the concerns of the state legislature and state government, if the state doesn’t have  a recall process, that’s what we do.  We implement the state’s recall process, and that is in addition to the people’s recall process.  You may have heard arguments where the Supreme Court has ruled that you can never do that for certain reasons, and there are those rulings, but most of them are very easily refuted.  The one that has not been refuted very easily was the fact that the states never had the power to recall a senator anyway.  Therefore, if they never had that power, we’re not going to give it to them.  So how can you ask for something you never had before with the Supreme Court ruling?  The answer to that is that that is an incorrect understanding of American history.  In the first Continental Congress, the state (and it’s written and completely documented; anybody can read it) specifically wrote that they had the right to recall their senators, and that has been since the origins of America.

SHARON: Why does it seem that no state has ever followed through on recalling a senator?

GINO: I think the teaching has been that once they’re in, they get to stay, and that’s it.  Eighteen of the states said, “Well, no, wait a minute here, we want to have the right of redress, and let’s figure out a way to do that, so they implemented recall processes for their senators as well as any other person in office.  The rest of the states just let it go.

SHARON: So this ties in with the state sovereignty issue where they already have the ability, but they’ve forgotten.

GINO: That’s right; the states have been asleep at the wheel.  It goes right back to state sovereignty.  Is it true that the 17th Amendment was never actually ratified?

GINO: Yes, evidence shows that it is, and neither was the 16th Amendment which brought the income tax.  It’s a completely illegal tax.


Editor’s Note: Gino’s analysis of the anti-illegal immigration bill recently passed in Arizona can be read here.

Note from Gino DiSimone: After the interview, I was asked to look beyond the history books and look at the actual States’ records and data on the 17th Amendment. Consequently, I conducted additional research and discovered the history books got it wrong. Diligent research was conducted by Mr. Bill Benson which took over two years. He actually hunted down the documents to count the States that agreed (resolved in favor or) and those that did not agree to the 17th Amendment and discovered: the data demonstratively shows the 16th and the 17th Amendments were never ratified according to the U.S. Constitution. Both Amendments are unlawful, unconstitutional, and should be nullified in each State.

Join the Conversation


Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  1. Great interview conclusion from a great man. Gino is spot on in so many ways. I particularly like his take on the 2nd, 14th, and 17th Amendments.

    I recently read or heard somewhere that there are U.S. companies actually marketing “birthing centers” where aliens can make arrangements to give birth in order to obtain U.S. citizenship for their offspring. I somehow doubt that this is what the framers of the 14th Amendment had in mind.

    We need a Gino in every state. A person who will actually uphold and defend state sovereignty as guaranteed by the 10th Amendment, and who will also hold the federal government’s feet to the fire regarding its responsibility to uphold and defend the Constitution as it is morally and legally entrusted to do.

    Gino For Governor 2010!

  2. Boy do I like this guy ! I might move to Nevada if he gets all the gays out and O as well . Maybe we could get him to run for pres ?

  3. This is a very interesting article. Does Mr. Disimone believe that BHO was born in Hawaii? MO (Michelle Obama) now says one more time her husband is Kenyan. I guess is doesn’t matter if he thinks it takes 2 citizen parents, but I was just curious.

    Girl Reporter

    1. Squeeky,
      The first interview with Mr. DiSimone addresses the eligibility issue at length I believe.
      I know if he’s governor he will press the issue from a position of authority – not many people are courageous enough to do that.
      Mrs. Rondeau replies: Yes, during the early part of the first interview, Mr. DiSimone addressed the eligibility issue quite directly.