Tim Meisburger ~ Democracy Specialist – Designed/Monitored Elections Abroad – Now Focusing on USA

Mike Lindell: I’m excited to announce we’re having a huge MyPillow Spring Sale, and here’s a few examples. Buy one of our MyPillow 2. 0s, you get another MyPillow 2. 0 absolutely free. Made with cooling technology, the best pillow ever just got even better. And this just in, nine brand new colors and styles of our percale bedsheets.

They’re made with the finest long staple cotton, and now you can save 50 percent or more. That’s as low as 24. 98. And for the first time this year, I’m bringing you our My Slippers and Sandals for as low as 25 a pair. So go to MyPillow. com or call the number on your screen. Use your promo code to get your MyPillow 2.

0s. Buy one, get one free. Per kale sheets as low as 24. 98. My Slippers and Sandals. As low as 25 a pair, and for a limited time, when you order 75 or more, your entire order ships absolutely [00:01:00] free!

Hi folks, Gene Valentino, and welcome to another episode of Gene Valentino’s Grassroots Truthcast. As you’ve heard me say in the past, we’ve had guests from different walks of life, political, social, economic, financial, banking, agricultural, environmental.

You pick the area, the industry, the topic, we’ve had them on. If you know someone interesting you’d like to have on as well, please reach out. Turn them our way through www. genevalentino. com. Oh, by the way, while you’re there, please subscribe. You’ll be receiving a few of these episodes per week, and we keep you up to date on the happenings in the Gene Valentino Grassroots Truthcast Circle of Friends and Family.

My guest this week is a Mr. Tim Meisberger. He is a Democratic Development Specialist. Tim comes to me through the Council for National Policy, which Tim and I had the chance to attend. He was also [00:02:00] a speaker. He refers to himself more succinctly as a democracy specialist. And I think I’m going to let Tim explain the rest of his bio to you.

Welcome aboard, Tim. Hi, Gene. Thanks. Happy to be here. So, yeah, I know it’s confusing. It’s almost like a Like a PhD, where they say, you know, more and more about less and less until, you know, everything about nothing. And that, that’s kind of how I am. I’m, but Oh no, Oh no. You’re not a government bureaucrat.

Are you? No, no. When you think about foreign aid. And development work assistance overseas. I do that sort of work. Early on in my career, I did quite a bit of different types of that, including humanitarian relief in places like the genocide in Rwanda But I specialized relatively early on on what we call democratic development, and essentially you’ve seen election monitors overseas where people show their purple finger [00:03:00] that they voted and things like that.

And I worked on programs like that, so I developed them, designed them and I evaluated elections overseas and managed those sorts of programs. And I did that for 30 years overseas. I wasn’t really involved in, in a lot of what you hear in the color revolutions, because that was really in Eastern Europe, and I was mostly in Asia and Africa, where we’re actually cared more about actual democracy, but I was involved for 30 years overseas and then in around, 2015 2016, I decided to come back to the United States. We had a presidential candidate at that time that spoke to me in a particular way. And I came back to the United States and worked here for a little while and then went to work for the Trump administration as the director of the Center for Democracy, Rights, and Governance at the U.

1. Agency for International Development. So, I was a senior political appointee there. [00:04:00] And of course, we met in California where I was talking about reform of foreign assistance in, in general policy and what we might see in the next administration, the next conservative administration. So when you were with the Trump administration, was he what were you providing him in terms of advice or insight?

Well, I wasn’t providing him directly with advice. Anyway, I was a little bit lower than that, like two levels below the cabinet. But what we were trying to do was to to support the administration by reforming foreign assistance, how it was done to be able to do it in a more rational way. And what we found, and what you’ve probably heard of, is that Is that the bureaucracy, the internal bureaucracy, the deep state or the administrative state is the way we refer to it, fought us tooth and nail from day one through that entire process.

And the truth is, is that [00:05:00] we didn’t The people that came from outside, like me, who weren’t D. C. professionals, didn’t really understand the system that well, and a lot of the people from previous administrations that did understand the system were really kind of on board with the whole idea of growing the state and growing this thing, so we weren’t as effective as we could have been, but we learned a lot, and I think if we have the opportunity to go back again, we’ll What we’re going to be able to do is to reform foreign assistance so that it reflects the values of the American people and not the values, not some weird ideological agenda like we see now.

So you’re seeing, you’re seeing not only so as I understand it, your purpose over the last three decades has been not only to ascertain the level of assistance to foreign entities, but might it be said you were helping to prop them up if they wanted to be now? as legitimate [00:06:00] democracies so that they could be engageable with us either economically or cooperative militarily.

Is that a fair presumption? Yeah, not so much on the military side, but really helping countries in their, what we would call transitional elections and then helping them. So, for example, Indonesia when Indonesia overthrew the dictator Sutarto we went in and we, we spent several years working with them, helping them to develop Free and fair election processes, transparent election processes, helping political parties to form and articulate the priorities of their constituents, and then going through that entire process.

And so I worked in there. In Nepal, we helped pro democracy groups to well, actually the entire government to develop a new constitution, a more democratic and, and A more people centered constitution there. So doing that sort of work. This is, this [00:07:00] is very interesting because you’re the kind of guy.

That many people wonder about. You’re the how do we establish our democracies overseas, if they’re willing to accept them, I’m certain that you’re not ramming it down their throat, although there might be some encouraging incentives to do so. The nonetheless, there’s. There’s a process you have to go through culturally as well to get them to adopt or buy into this notion of we the people grassroots you know, putting in someone who becomes our spokesman our doing our bidding for us in a representative republic.

How is that received when you try to explain that? Yeah, well, it’s, it’s, it’s harder to explain it here in the United States than, than it was overseas in the countries where we were working. But but the, the problem is, is that democracy assistance has been hijacked in many countries. So in countries where, where the United States has political [00:08:00] interests, I would say like Ukraine and much of Eastern Europe you have seen what they called color revolutions and the color revolutions were not really pro democracy movements.

They were actually pro socialist movements. They were, they were really trying to, The installation of socialist regimes in those countries, but in other countries where, where we didn’t have that kind of political interference, we’re actually helping people to, to, to try and express their will in government, which is what, what democracy is and, and And we don’t really, I’ve never really had to convince people to, to love the idea of democracy.

Everybody, everywhere would like to be involved in, in, in in pushing in, in having some level of control or influence on their government. So what, but, So yeah, it hasn’t been that difficult, but it depends on where you are. And so some of the democracy programs [00:09:00] overseas have been very bad, and some of them, I like to think, at least the ones I was involved in, have been pretty good.

Well, you picked two in particular Nepal and Indonesia, for example. You really don’t have a situation where, in an autocratic fascist environment, where it’s You got people with guns to their head to perform and, and, and comply. I mean, how do you come in with a democracy in that environment? You don’t.

You, so, so there must be a, a vacuum or an ability a willingness to bring you in to get you to structure that there as opposed to some regime would probably shoot you, shoot you at the border. Yeah. And normally it’s It’s a transitional moment. So the, the people in Indonesia had overthrown their, their dictator and, and and Suharto and, and they were, and they were open to the idea of having people come and help them to, to set up a new governmental structure.

In Nepal, they had Nepal [00:10:00] is one of the most interesting places. Where they have the, the greatest diversity of different ethnic groups I’ve ever seen, they have caste, they have cleavages, they have racial cleavages economic cleavages, and they, they were trying to craft a constitution, and it took them 10 years.

But helping them along the way to do that, to to, to figure out how to come together and decide on what they, they had consensus on, and then to articulate that in a formal constitutional structure, I think was a very, I mention it because I think it was very good. In other countries, we were less effective.

In Bangladesh, I worked on many elections in Bangladesh, but Bangladesh is the country that is pretty much ruled by a couple of dynasties. And and, and so we were never really a, the government wanted us, would allow us to work because they wanted U. S. foreign assistance in other areas. But, but then underneath of that, they were always trying to undermine the work and, and stealing elections and things like [00:11:00] that.

So It was not as successful, but we were successful in some places and, and and we showed the best of America when we did that. Wonderful. Well, folks, we’re talking to Tim Meisberger. He was during the Trump administration Director of the Center of Democracy, Rights, and Governance. And I, I wanted Tim to come on with us today.

To give you a sense first of what he’s done overseas and other other, other regions of the world number one, not only in establishing the government, but how he got in there to create the structure for that government. Then discuss now some of the election process and the processes that they went through, the administration of it, the legitimizing of the process we might want to talk about in a second, Tim.

And then just to keep the folks engaged with us. We’d like to transition now to the United States of America, and what the hell’s going on here, and why, Tim, you came back, maybe to help out with the legitimacy of our own democracy, the legitimacy of our own [00:12:00] election process. Let’s end there, but back on point, what happened overseas and how were they receiving, so you were actually monitoring the elections once the government was set up over there?

Yeah, we, I think in the early days, what we did was what we call election observation or monitoring elections. And, and pretty early on, it became very clear that, that that was insufficient really to, to establish a democratic government. And so we started doing civic education. We started doing. Working with political parties and, and helping them to, to better articulate and, and represent their, their constituents and things like that.

So, really started looking deeper and deeper into what that entire process is or, or what is really required to make a democratic country. And, and I think the, one of the fundamental. Lessons I learned, I think, over 30 years was that, that foundationally democracy is cultural. That if you don’t have that cultural [00:13:00] base that, that, that, that understands that people are equal and should have an equal say in government, then, then you, you’re not really ready for democracy.

And it’s not so much a legislative thing, but it’s a way. They view people and I think that the good illustration of that for me was in Sri Lanka, where they have a hierarchical or a feudal structure and the people would, in the plantations, would line up on election day and their foreman would go and tell them who to vote for and they would all march down to the polling station and vote for that person because that person was their, their patron, right?

And they were in that patron client relationship or feudal relationship. Yeah. And, and so they didn’t see anything wrong with that. So, so even though they had the form of democracy, they didn’t have the substance. They didn’t have, it wasn’t functionally a democracy. People really didn’t have much say in government.

And of course we saw that, we see that around the world and it’s, it’s very common in the United States as well. Well, that’s what I wanted to move toward. But you [00:14:00] weren’t actually establishing a system or monitoring voting ballots integrity the efficacy of the vote itself, were you? Yeah, of course.

Yeah, we were doing that. And I, I mean, I’ve, I’ve designed elections. I’ve I, I wrote the election law in Bosnia for, for a Bosnian election in 94. So we’ve designed elections. We monitored elections. One of the. To, to determine whether or not they’re free and fair. And obviously they’ll have a lot to say about that when we start talking about the United States.

Well, I was, you, you, you just, you got me. But, but I was going to do, I was going to do a quick jump on you and say, well, how does that compare to the last two elections alone? But before I get into that, I do want to talk a little, just a little bit about what what we were talking about at CNP and, and what the, what the American people, you spend I think it was two years ago was 70 billion on foreign assistance.

Last year, or it was 55 fiscal years, 55 billion. And, and what that money is [00:15:00] spent on. And I think at its heart, what, what we saw, what, what we believe in the Trump administration is that the, the people of the United States are charitable when they see a starving child, you know, because of a drought, or they see a hurricane destroy a city.

They have a charitable impulse and they want to help those people. But what has happened over time is we have created this fantastically large and bureaucratic aid infrastructure that pumps money overseas. And it’s actually spent on a lot of things people would never really think to call foreign assistance or foreign aid.

So for example, we support, we provide direct financial support to a lot of foreign militaries, like in, in Uruguay or any country you can think of. Somewhere we’re providing them, them straight dollars to their military to support their military. We’re doing a lot of of different things. But, and, and, and one of the things I advocated was that we need to split that off, that military [00:16:00] assistance, that national security function, and, and let’s focus on the charity.

If we need to do that for other reasons, for diplomatic reasons, let’s, let’s put that under a different category. And let’s, let’s honor the American people and their charitable Impulse. But the other thing we see in foreign assistance is it’s, it can increase, become increasingly ideological. So I did studies last year where I looked at the State Department, I looked at USAID the, the Agency for International Development, and a lot of the The organizations, the NGOs or other things that implement democracy assistance.

I got into the Federal Election Commission data and looked at donations from people that were employed by those those organizations, and we found that between 92 and 99 or 100 percent of all donations were going to Democratic candidates or causes. So in effect, what we saw in there in our government and in the The non profit [00:17:00] institutions and contractors that work with our government was an entirely one party system.

That there were no Republicans involved, there were no Republicans really allowed in that at all. Tim, this is something I feared for some time. So what you’re saying is that the federal budget, the federal funding, whatever the level of billions it is, is supporting Over 90 percent of Democrat causes, politicians, or personal political interest.

Is that a fair statement? Yeah, well, the, the, the personal contributions that, that those people are making, they’re making to Democratic candidates and causes. So that, that’s one aspect of the politicization. It’s an entirely Democrat infrastructure. But the other is, Disinformation is a big deal right now.

Disinformation programs have been used to suppress conservatives in the United States. All of those were developed by foreign assistance organizations. All of those were funded by U. S. government taxpayer money [00:18:00] and developed by, and developed by foreign assistance providers. So what they’re doing overseas in that regard is leaking back into the United States.

Also what they’re doing is, is they’re going overseas in places like Africa and Asia, and they’re promoting an LGBTI agenda, and they’re promoting abortion. Right. They’re, they’re, they’re telling governments overseas that if you want our assistance in this area, then you need to change your law to allow abortion here and things like that.

So, so instead of focusing on actually helping poor people or helping the most marginalized in society, they’re driving their ideological agenda in these countries overseas in a form of colonialism or imperialism that we really. I think people are not really aware of. And so I remember, yeah, I remember going back to the Marshall Plan just after World War II, how benevolent and giving the Americans were to the world, propping up needy nations and so [00:19:00] forth.

Frankly, we were, we were benevolent before NATO came around, but to your point, I think this benevolence in propping up things as you’ve described has morphed into some sort of well, benevolence has morphed into greed. And what we’re seeing is some sort of targeting or using, using of these benevolent purposes as a mask or a front for a political agenda.

Yes? No? Yes, that’s absolutely correct. So they’re taking money from the American taxpayer under the, by saying that this money is to help poor people overseas, and then they’re using that to drive a political agenda overseas, and they’re using that infrastructure To fund subsidized activists who then develop approaches to implementing their ideological agenda and then come back and do that in the United States.

So, in effect, the American [00:20:00] people are supporting these ideological activists through their tax dollars. And it’s really appalling. And so that was really one of the things that that at CNP, I wanted to talk about what the situation is today with foreign assistance and how we would reform that in a new administration.

And I remember that in your presentation at CNP, my question, and the graph charts was, Frankly, it was overwhelming. It was stunning. I could not believe that we, the American government are funding so many what targeted What’s the word I want? Less than generalized giving. It was targeted giving for special purpose.

Some, some of it could be, could be considered nefarious in nature, if not illegal, in the way we were trying to fund things that otherwise could not be funded in the open here in the United States. No, that’s true. And, and I think a lot of people, it’s a big issue, this illegal immigration right [00:21:00] now. And a lot of people don’t really understand that our foreign assistance pays organizations like Catholic Relief Services or Save the Children to support those, those illegal immigrants on the border, but also to support them in Mexico and in other parts of Latin America.

And in fact, it’s, it’s, it’s hard to believe, but we provide the United Nations funding that they then pay people in Latin America to immigrate to the United States. They give them credit cards, the debit cards, they give them money. They say, if you’re on your way, you know, if you people in this village are on your way to America, we’re going to give you this 350 Credit card or debit card and, and, you know, we’ll support you all along the way.

We’ll give you buses. We’ll feed you. We’ll do all that. That’s all American taxpayer money. We are paying those people, those illegal immigrants to come to this country through our foreign assistance budget. Folks, we’re talking to Tim [00:22:00] Meisberger. He’s an international democratic development and election specialist, but he’s done something also in his last 30 years in service.

He’s focused on what we’re doing with our foreign aid, as he’s just described, and how it’s morphed into a perverse nefarious purpose. Tim, which gets to my question. Is that why you stopped serving abroad and to come home? You know, I’m, I’m what they used to call a paleocon or paleoconservative. And, and when I saw President Trump’s agenda and platform, I wanted to come back and work in his administration.

I wanted to have the opportunity to reform. foreign assistance. At that time, I thought we could work within the structure. We thought, Oh, we’ll just come in and we’ll tweak it. We’ll do this. We’ll do that. We didn’t realize, I think then that we needed to actually scrap it all that the entire infrastructure had been corrupted, but, but And so I wanted to come back and work for him.

And I think, I think being back in the United [00:23:00] States after spending 30 years overseas trying to promote democracy overseas, I came back to the United States and I was shocked what I found here. And I realized that instead of being overseas for 30 years, Fighting for democracy. I should have been here in this country fighting for democracy and free and fair elections.

That’s a mouthful right there. I commend you for coming back for that. Wish you came sooner in that regard. Might have curtailed some of the excessive spending for nefarious causes abroad which may have dovetailed back into our own pockets here. What Was, was Donald Trump able to, is that why Donald Trump has used, has taken the position he has on the United Nations?

The notion that we’re overspending on our portion of the contribution at the UN, not only talking about foreign nations stepping up to pay their fair share as the funding requirements formula requires. But But is there really a [00:24:00] hidden agenda there where Donald Trump was saying, ha ha, even you subversive groups aren’t going to get any of our money anymore.

We need to, UN related or not, we’re not paying for nefarious regimes, interest groups, propped up intentions with a not for profit label on it like Clinton Foundation going down, to Haiti another such a interest groups only to find out I can’t find where that money went either. Any comment on that before we dig into the United States?

Well, I think that if you talk about the United Nations I worked for the United Nations in the nineties, in fact, in Rwanda during the genocide. And, and I, I, I had to leave because I couldn’t work for such a corrupt organization. I, I, I had a moral principles and, and I, I couldn’t. Corrupt organization?

You mean the United Nations? Absolutely. And, and so when we think about the United Nations, most people think about what’s what we have in New York, which we call the Secretariat [00:25:00] or the Forum. Basically it’s a talking shop where countries around the world can come together and talk to each other. And that’s probably a pretty good idea as long as we don’t think that’s a democratic institution, right?

That the fact that, that Jamaica and the United States have the same voice there is, is, is big. Is because it’s a talking shop. It’s not a democratic institution. It’s it in no way is reflective of a and should never be seen as a as anything more than a talking shop, but associated with the U. N. You have what they call the U.

1. system or the U. N. structure, and that’s the World Health Organization. David Pasqualone, Remarkable People Podcast, Listen. My presentation was that, that the UN system is the high cost, low quality [00:26:00] provider of every service that it provides. So even if any of the things we’re funding through the UN now are still needed, we shouldn’t be doing it through the UN system.

We should use American providers or American organizations rather than the UN because the UN is just not very good at what they do. Well, is that, is that why, had Dr. Robert Malone on recently talking about vaccines and masks and the world condition of the virus coming out of the Wuhan lab.

And I’m, I, I’m stunned to see how strongly he supports the Robert F. Kennedy book on the real Anthony Fauci. Which leads me to believe that maybe his, as a virologist, an epidemiologist, he’s come through with some evidence about how the WHO was so totally off base and some of their analytics and is that what you’re referring to?

That we were funding like WHO and clearly they were off their market and they had to retract on some of the positions they [00:27:00] took on the vaccine and the virus. No, I think that’s absolutely true. I think that in the old days, I used to talk about the UN and I say, you know, maybe some parts of it are okay that I don’t know anything about.

And I was talking to a medical guy once and I said, you know, like maybe the WHO, maybe they’re good. I don’t know anything about them. And he started laughing. And I think I talked to Dr. Malone as well at the CMP thing. And, and the WHO is completely politicized and, and you know, It’s not something that we want to fund.

And you may recall, I do recall, that one of the Big applause lines during my presentation was when I said that we should entirely defund the UN and WHO. Yes, sir. And, and but we, we should not give them a nickel if we think that anything they do has value. So, for example, working with refugees or others in camps.

Near wars or something like that, then we should do that through other organizations and not through the U. N. The U. N. fights against us. They [00:28:00] fight against us in the political sphere. They fight against us in, in in the development sphere. They’re not our friends and, and they’re not very good at what they do.

So, yeah, I would. Yeah, is it true that Donald Trump may have been listening to you in, in his four year terms? Because that seems to be his tone. He may have been listening to Peter Navarro. I know that when I was in a meeting on a in a skiff with the White House and, and Peter was on there and he was ripping the, the programs which was something really good for me to hear because there were so few of us in the administration.

So, yeah, I, I think that Donald Trump understands. He understands business in a very good way and he understands effectiveness and he wants people that are effective and, and can do things. And it’s very clear that the UN is politicized and, and, and not really capable of, of doing the work that they’ve stood up and said that, you know, they should be paid 250, 000 a piece to do or, or whatever.

So. [00:29:00] Well, your insight’s pretty good. Folks, we’re talking with Tim Meisberger. He’s been about 30, 30, 40 years in government, but he’s done something very interesting, started Not in government. Not, excuse me, as an advisor. Well, in and out of Working with foreign governments. That’s correct. Working with foreign I worked for, I worked mostly for a foundation overseas.

Okay. And, and as a consequence, he’s had the privilege. Well, you obviously ended up in government though, to be very much a part of it. And is obviously why you were one of Donald Trump’s picks in the cabin. I sure wished he had had the time in his quick inauguration into office. To put more character and quality of people in place like you, I commend you for coming back for that purpose.

God willing, he wins the next election. I hope you find a formidable spot in the in his operation to reinstate some of those policies which seem to have been fallen by the wayside. You were just talking about the [00:30:00] United Nations, 14 to 0 vote the United States abstains against Israel. I don’t get it.

The first time in history we’ve gone, we were silent on helping our ally, and that to me is shameful. And as an American, I can’t blame Bibi Netanyahu, Prime Minister of Israel, from canceling his trip to Washington to see Joe Biden. Well, the incompetence of our diplomats is really Astonishing. And we saw what a common sense approach to diplomacy can achieve during the president’s term.

I mean, you know, the work he did in the Middle East and the work he did around the world, the way he raised our profile in NATO and got people to start paying money. I mean, it’s a common sense approach. Right? It’s just, if you ask a 12 year old what they should be doing, that’s what they would say. It’s only these super [00:31:00] smart, you know leftist diplomats that can come up with policies that are so bad and so counterproductive to the American people.

I mean, the, the, we’re in a contest with China in Africa and other parts of the world. And in China, The, the, the Africans really dislike the Chinese. The Chinese come in and they’re like colonialists. They come in and they, they, they build factories and then they, they staff those factories with Chinese.

They’ve imported from China. And of course the local people, they’re like, what is this? You know, you’re, you’re taking all our natural resources and we don’t even get jobs or anything out of it. So they really dislike the Chinese, but we have, our diplomats are so bad that they dislike us more. We saw what happened in, in Uganda.

In, in Uganda, there was a, a very old law, anti homosexuality law from when Uganda was a British colony. That’s how old it was. Nobody enforced it. Nobody did anything about it. Nobody really cared about it. And then the Biden administration [00:32:00] went over there to Uganda and started talking up the LGBTI agenda and pride this and, and abortion that.

And they really upset the people over there And, and their response was to draft a new law, which they call the anti gay law. I don’t know, but, but to draft a new law and then, and then the Biden administration condemned them for doing that when the Biden administration created the conditions that, that, that, that pushed them to do that.

They’re tired of being pushed around by America. So I think it’s, it’s really pathetic that, that we are diplomats can’t defeat the Chinese. In Africa. What do you mean? Our, our, our diplomats, our foreign core is so incompetent. What, what do you really mean by that? I, I, I, I mean, it’s like they don’t understand basic diplomacy.

It’s like they go and they, they, they try and push countries around. They’re, they’re holier than thou. They’re like, you have to change your law to, to accommodate our ideological beliefs. You, you have to [00:33:00] allow, you know, if, if you want us to give you this. This foreign assistance is foreign aid for other things, then you have to change your law to allow a abortion in your country or something like that.

It’s a, it’s a form of imperialism and colonialism that’s really disgusting. And Africa is a continent that we should care about. It’s got all the natural resources left in the world, I mean, in Africa. And is being imposed upon by China. Yeah, so. And that’s what scares me more than anything else is the the acceleration of China coming into Africa at this time while we’re divert, deflect, distract, looking at other things in the world, where China’s going in a back door into Africa, propping up in our backyard.

China apparently has bought a lot of our politicians and probably a lot of our diplomats as well. And to me, it’s treason. But, we have problems with our judicial institutions at home that we haven’t been able to address that. [00:34:00] All right, well, let’s address that you and I. Let’s switch now to the United States.

I’m going to give you free reign on it. You can talk about the election process. You can talk about the Congress and the presidents and the behavioral issues. What needs to change, by whom, when. Let’s talk also about election integrity, but before you start, I would like you to define for me, and many out there who misuse the terms every day, oh, we’re really not a democracy, we’re a constitutional republic.

Explain that point. Right. So people tell me that all the time. They get on their high horse and they’re like, don’t say we’re a democracy, we’re a republic. And the truth is, is that we’re both. We are what’s called a constitutional republic. That means we have a country that is, that is governed at its core, supposedly by our constitution, something that’s fixed, [00:35:00] that limits the power of government.

Right. A key thing to think about rights and to think about the constitution is it limits the power of government. And it, it, by limiting that it is shifting some of that power to the people, to the states and to the people in our case. A democracy is, is well, literally means rule by the people. And of course there is direct democracy where, you know, 10 people get together and, and they decide where they’re going to eat dinner or whatever by majority vote.

There’s representative democracy where we we have one friend that we know has good taste and, and we nominate him as our representative. We vote and we say, he’s our representative. He’s going to go out and get us dinner and he’s just going to choose for us and bring it back to us or whatever. But and so we are a representative democracy.

We, there’s nothing wrong with democracy. If you hear the Democrats talk, they’re always like, our democracy, our democracy, as if they own it. But the, the truth is, is that we [00:36:00] are the, we are the pro democracy activists in the United States. We are the ones that want the people to have a voice in government.

They’re the ones that are fighting desperately hard to keep the people’s voice out of government. They’re the ones that say populism, which is, after all, just doing what people want you to do. That, that’s a dirty word in some way. They’re the ones that talk about fascism while they’re, they’ve created a marriage between corporations and the state.

So anyway, so, so, so, so don’t, what I want to encourage people is just remember, you’re the pro democracy activists. When you see the pro democracy demonstrators on TV in other countries marching and, and fighting for free and fair elections, that’s you. That’s not them, that’s you. And, and and we don’t wanna allow the Democrats to have that term because that is our term.

We are the ones that are in favor of democracy and they’re the ones that are fighting against democracy. The more I watch, the more I interview others, the more experiences I’m exposed to in my life, [00:37:00] the more I realize that, there is more power in the hands of a few in both the House and Senate right now that frustrate even the other congressmen.

You heard it on the news leak out recently when they passed this, what, 1. 2 trillion dollar bill budget only to find out you have congressmen and women complaining they didn’t get a chance to read it or read all of it, thousands of pages or something, and They only had 24 hours and Speaker McCarthy had it set up when he was re instated to to be about 72 hours at the minimum.

And we see people today Tim in Congress. Over they make promises to you and me when they’re out here campaigning in our respective districts, but it’s like a psychological transformation occurs when they go through those doors in Congress and they find themselves consumed with a [00:38:00] priority of political angst and a priority that is not relative to anything they promised their citizens back at home.

Who voted them into office? And now here they are with a political Republican or Democrat regime that they better toe the line with. It’s easy to point to that in the Democrat side, but it exists in the Republican side as well. Absolutely. And, and what, what what’s your, let’s start right there.

What’s your take on the transition that our Congressmen and women go through after election? One of the things I focused on overseas was what I call quality of representation. So how accurately do representatives reflect the, the concerns and aspirations of their constituents. That’s a, that’s a direct measure of the quality of democracy.

For example, if you just elect people and then they do whatever they want, they have no connection to the people, no accountability to the people. That’s not really democracy, right? So [00:39:00] what we see in the United States is really a breakdown in the quality of representation. And, and I think, I mean, When I look at it, I believe these people are compromised in one way or another.

They get to Washington, they get in with that set, they’re compromised, many of them sexually, many of them with funding. You see how, how they become richer and richer over the course of time on a government salary. And, and so then they become beholden to these interests, either because they’ve been compromised and, and those people have compromat on them that they could.

Blackmail them or just because they they’re part of the in crowd and they feel like oh, you know We’re all get rich together and we’re smarter than everyone else And so therefore we should just do what we want to do and it’s it’s the strongest argument I think for for term limits that, that over the course of time, these people become captured and you can see it in, in the quality of representation.

When they first go up, they’re gung ho and they want to support their [00:40:00] constituents. And over the course of time, they’re sucked into that, that system. So one of the things I would, I would advocate for is, I mean, we, we need more scorecards and things like that on the America First side. Like we have for a Second Amendment for candidates evaluating them on Second Amendment or, or, or, or pro-choice issues.

But, but what we really need to do is get state legislators to call a convention of the states and, and introduce term limits state legislators. The vast majority of state legislators will never, ever, ever have a chance to be a congressman. Right? Yeah. Like the old Romans had the Corsus Honorum, I think they called it, where you would go through the different offices throughout your career and getting higher and higher.

But in general, state, state legislators don’t have that opportunity because the congressmen get in there and they stay for 40, 50, 60, you know, or 150 years, I don’t know. But [00:41:00] and so, so it’s in their interest to do that. That’s one of the reforms we should make to improve the quality of representation.

And I know people say, Oh my gosh, Convention of the States, what would happen? What would happen? Well, it can’t be worse than what we have now. That’s right. But, and I would say that it’s, it’s pretty clear that you wouldn’t have anything go through there. that that wouldn’t be basically a consensus of the public.

And I think the only two issues are a balanced budget amendment, maybe, and the term limits. So, please let me enter, please let me jump in there. I have on my website, folks, a little tab at the top on GeneValentino. com and it says Gene’s Second Bill of Rights. As we all know, the first Bill of Rights is the first 10 amendments to the Constitution.

Gene’s second Bill of Rights I was going to say tongue in cheek. They’re pretty serious, but I welcome any expert coming in to tweak them and modify them. In that second Bill of Rights are 11 more amendments to the Constitution. [00:42:00] So we have 27 amendments now, including the first including the Bill of Rights.

The 11 more I propose, Gene’s second Bill of Rights, includes two things Tim Meisberger has just referred to. It includes a balanced budget, it includes term limits, and the term limits apply not only to the President of the United States, but to Congressmen and women in the Senate and the House. In some cases it may apply, or should apply, to bureaucrats with Who have been around 30, 40 years, who have been working for these elected officials.

And truthfully, Tim, you can comment on this if you want, I put it in there to extend to staffing to some degree because they in fact are carrying, carrying the water in many cases for the elected official and many of the elected officials in this nation moving so many, so fast on so many issues. Rely on staff to do some of that detail.

Nonetheless, it goes [00:43:00] down a path like we see in the Democrat party and the administration now under Biden, where they’re talking about climate change and social issues in the foreign diplomacy arena that embarrasses our allies overseas because of the lack of Co cohesion on key issues. They’re talking about social issues and gay rights and LGBT and abortion and climate change.

And these poor nations of the world have much more serious issues to worry about that cannot be addressed because of this preference in the policymaking is because we have staff underneath elected and appointed officials that have been driving the truck for 10, 20, 30 years. And so those are two of the amendments in Gene’s second Bill of Rights.

I also proposed another one I think you’d like, Tim, and that’s, which is why I invited you on the show today, and that’s an election [00:44:00] process. The Constitution of the United States is to create an amendment. that focuses specifically on a paid holiday, one or two days per year, where the entire nation gets its ability to vote at a poll with a paper ballot because of proof that’s been, because of the proof, positive information, That is not disputable.

That shows elections have been compromised through ballot harvesting the ballot box issue, the seven ballots of a person at one address who’s been dead for 15 years, but that house gets 10 ballots is part of the perpetration of a fraud that the Democrats and Republicans, but more so the Democrats, have been involved in.

And I propose penalties for that in my amendments. If this, it’s more, it’s not just a matter of saying, you [00:45:00] can’t do this, or, or, or addressing a subject we’ve been silent on now. It, there’s gotta be consequences if you in fact do wrong. That’s what’s the pro, that’s what the problem is to me right now, and I welcome everybody to check out Gene’s second bill of rights.

Please give me your two cents worth. You can actually pull down each of the 11 amendments, copy and paste it to a word a word page and you can and edit it as you see fit. Send it to me through the website. I’d love your opinion. Tim, I definitely love your opinion on some of those. They, they, I’m certain they, they will, if they’re not totally correct legally or in scope, I welcome your input back to fix them.

I didn’t mean to worry about being perfect. I meant to worry about getting it out there as a principle we need to address. Well, I, I, I agree with you. And I think that my My recent research has actually shown the need for, for term limits in federal employment. [00:46:00] Really? When I look at the federal government, I see basically a patronage machine for Democrat activists.

It’s a way to bring them in and to pay them to, to, so that they can work against the people of the United States. Government workers on average make 30 to 40 percent more than, than private sector workers engaged in the same activities. And in D. C. it’s probably more closer to 100 percent.

It, it’s, it’s a, it’s a patronage structure right now, and the evidence shows that it’s entirely democratic. And that’s not American. We agree. Whoa, whoa, whoa. That’s important. You just said that. You’re saying that this bad behavior. Is Democrat Party or Democrat policy oriented? Absolutely. It’s the, the, the, the, the government workers unions that control the, the, the government workers are entirely Democrat.

The, the [00:47:00] contributions that come from Government workers suggest that all of the government workers are Democrat. The policies that come out of government agencies all support the, the progressive or, or Democrat agenda. And it’s not reflective of the people at large, right? If, if, if we were, if we, If you were to look at contributions coming from employees of government agencies, if we’re 50 percent Republicans and 50 percent Democrats, then you would reflect the, the, the constitutions the, the contributions should reflect that.

We are no longer a government of the people. We have a governing class. These people are typically hereditary. Their, their parents or some relative worked in the government. And is able to get them into the government. They’ve they’ve dumbed down the universities and created this certificate mentality or, or so that, that YY all get a, they get, they get their little, they get their fake master’s degree, but they’re incompetent.

If you go into the government, the first [00:48:00] thing that anyone notices when they go into the government. is the incompetence of government employees because they’ve never had, they’ve never been accountable for anything. They’ve never had to produce anything. It doesn’t really matter. They can work on a project for five years and it can be a complete failure and nobody cares.

They have a job for life. And so my idea is that, and I don’t want to get too deep in this, but, but we need to To, to move them out, have term limits, six or seven years of, of, of, of government employment, and then start getting ordinary Americans to say, okay, I’m a farmer, but I’m gonna take four or five years off and I’m gonna go and, and, and do my civic duty and work for the Department of Agriculture for four or five years before I go back to the farm, you know, Israel, and get people to do that.

Israel does it with the the IDF. I mean, they’ve got you’re all respond, required to participate for four to six years. And so it doesn’t need to be a requirement, but, but the government, our government should look like the people. It shouldn’t be a class of, [00:49:00] of people that are totally isolated. The point I often make is during, during the COVID.

hoax or whatever it was, that not a single government worker from the federal level to the county level lost one day of work. Not a single day. And yet those were the people that were, were making policy and putting other people out of work. Those people that had no skin at all in the game, that got paid every single day to sit at home, had not a single one of them lost their job.

And they made policy related to COVID. How does that in any way have anything to do with with, with, you know, what America should be? Okay, fast forward under a Trump administration, Tim Meisberger, what kind of policy do you bring forward for the president to support to address that specific issue?

Yeah, I, it’s a little technical and complicated, but basically what I like, well, don’t make it technical, just basically what I’d like to do is just move to a system where we, we have what we call per personal service contractors working [00:50:00] in government, but also we just need to cut the federal workforce. I mean, it’s just a ton of people that, that don’t have work to do.

And so the more we can cut what government does, the more people we can cut and they can, they can go out and they can mer the code, you know, whatever. Okay. And Department of Education. The Department of it. I mean, we’re getting into other stuff now, but the Department of Education should just be eradicated, right?

I agree. If you look at the quality of education in the United States and over time, you’ll see a steady decline since the start of the Department of Education. And so the Department of Education has been negative, right? And, and we, we definitely should get rid of the Department of Education. Okay.

Rapid fire in our last five to 10 minutes. The intelligence. Sorry, we didn’t get into elections. Yeah, I know. We did. Well, let’s come back to that. We can go a little longer. But we the intelligence agencies we should definitely eliminate the FBI. Okay. One of the things we, we can go back and look at, at going all the way back to Hoover and seeing a a police, a [00:51:00] federal Police force, there’s no local accountability to that, right?

So in essence, it becomes unaccountable. And I think it’s just a natural function of being that kind of secret government police, that it starts to abuse its power. And, and I would say that we could keep maybe the FBI crime laboratory. But everything else kind of get rid of and push it all back to the states and let the states do it.

And well, you’re not alone before. And, and I mean, I’m tired of being oppressed by, by the secret police. So I don’t, you know, the pendulum sometimes in government swings between the extremes. And while I see this is why we’ve survived so long, in my opinion, is because the states, the existence of the states has created a, A turf war, if you will, a tension between the federal jurisdictions and the state jurisdictions of authority.

And what you just described was you know, what should happen this interstate [00:52:00] activity, which is federal concept unto itself and versus statehood at what at what stuff legitimately goes back to the states? What stuff belongs at the federal level? Would you compromise in your thinking to your advice and counsel to a president to re propose a new FBI which has the limited authority to do so?

And not such so much autonomy, or should it as a department have the autonomy to keep its distance away from a corrupt president? Oh no, I, I don’t think it, I don’t think it should have any law enforcement power. I think it should have a coordinating, coordinating function and we should push it back to the states.

I think one of the reforms I advocated overseas where we saw abusive police forces, they were all centrally controlled. And what I argued was that we should move to a sheriff system where you have the chief local law enforcement [00:53:00] officer is elected, and then so directly accountable to the people. So you don’t have police shaking people down in the streets.

Because they’re directly accountable to someone that’s local that people can vote for and, and, and get in an office. So I’m a democracy guy. My, my answer to most things is, is democracy, but I think that the FBI has proved that it doesn’t work. I mean, it’s proved it over a long course, long period of time.

And, and and, and I don’t think we need law enforcement. We used to not have an FBI. And I think as long as we have law enforcement at the state level, I think we’re okay. That’s my understanding. Well, Donald Trump and Donald Trump and Cash Patel, were trying to bring in the National Guard to Nancy Pelosi on Jan two days prior to January 6th event.

I won’t call it an insurrection. Two six two two days prior to January 6th. You know, I was there, you know, January 6th was was, it was very unique in a lot of ways, and what it was was the largest pro [00:54:00] democracy demonstration in the history of the United States. There were two million people in Washington that day, and so there were a few hundred or whatever went into the Capitol, but that’s not the significant event there.

The reason they focused on that event was because they didn’t want people to focus on the two million people that were out on the mall protesting for free and fair elections, because they’re terrified by that. So they had to, they had to sort of create this, whatever it was. Yeah, it’s what I refer to as divert, deflect, and distract.

Gene’s three D’s, take your eye off the ball, create a false narrative on another issue to keep you distracted. And I might add to your concept of state versus federal isn’t it ironic that it was Donald Trump and Kash Patel encouraging Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, Control of the Law Enforcement in the Capitol.

She would not cooperate with Trump’s request, Kash Patel’s request to bring in, what, 10, 000, 20, [00:55:00] 000 National Guard to stave off the threat of any uprising of sorts. You’re correct. I, I think there is a, a lengthy discussion needed on distinguishing what’s federal and what belongs back at the state level.

You mentioned in the beginning the convention of states as it pertains to some of these constitutions constitutional amendments. I think you’re correct, not because I like to engage the convention of states to solve this problem, but if the, if the truth be known. In this cabal of an anti constitutional republic, isn’t it true, sir, that our congressmen in, do you think a congressman in Washington, D.

C., even if we had the House and the Senate combined in one party, would support term limits? No. Some of those, well. We know they won’t. Because. So how do you put an amendment through? Yeah. The only way is through the [00:56:00] state. That’s correct. So your point’s made. Folks, we’re talking with Tim Meisberger. I want to refer to him in two words as a democracy specialist who also tried to prop up the democratic constitutional republic process in overseas nations in the decades prior, came back to the states when Donald Trump was running for office in 2016, correct?

And then became very much a contributor to helping analyze election we now we can get into it. Election interference. What did you do to analyze the, the the truth and the extent of election interference? Was there election interference in the last two elections?

Yeah, I would say that, yes, I would say first to preface that, that I’ve spent 30 years evaluating the quality of [00:57:00] elections overseas. And I am, if not the top person in the world for that, I’m, I’m close to that. I mean, I’m, I don’t want to brag or anything like that, but, but I do actually know how to evaluate an election.

And I can say with with certainty, absolute certainty, that if I was, Running an international observation mission and evaluating the United States elections in 2012, 2016, 2020, 2022, that not one of those Would I be able to say that that there was any confidence was a free and fair election? And going all the way back to 2012 we saw the, the IRS which is a state agency suppressing Tea Party conservative speech.

And one of the points I want to make when you evaluate an election, let me just go away from [00:58:00] election day for a minute and say, when we look at an election process, we look at the entire process. You can’t just look at election day. There’s a lot of things that can happen before election day. or after Election Day that affect the integrity of that process.

And what we want to see in an in an election environment is what we call a level playing field. I don’t know, is that a saying in the United States? I’m so used to being overseas where they know that, but, that is the correct term, level playing field. So, so the law applied equally to everyone. We want to be able to see.

Political parties be able to speak, not be censored, to be able to assemble, to bring their people together, to, to do all of the things that they need to be able to do, to participate effectively in a democratic process. And what we saw was, was we, we, what we see overseas in authoritarian governments is a one party state.

And where the state puts its thumb on the scale, where the state tries to affect you know, the, the speech or, [00:59:00] or the state is working with media. and censoring its political opponents, or it’s taking its political opponents and, and charging them with crimes or putting them in jail. All of those things are ways that, that, that authoritarian governments overseas affect an election.

The easiest thing in the world is to lock up your political opponent. Right? That works every time. That happens all over the world in the worst authoritarian countries on earth. But there are other ways you can do that. You can make the, write the rules so that the rules disadvantage your opponents. You can, you can I, I’ll use an example from American history.

We used to have something called Jim Crow, right? Which was the suppression of the black vote in the South. One of the ways they used to suppress the black vote in the South was, was to run out of ballots. Oh, sorry. You know we didn’t have enough ballots today or we had the ballots in the ballot box, but they fell in the river while we were driving back to the station or, or something like that.

And, and that was one of the ways that they suppressed that Jim Crow suppressed ballots. And we [01:00:00] saw in 2022 in Arizona, the worst case of voter suppression in the United States since Jim Crow, when the Democrats easily, they, they, they knew that, that they were going to all vote early. And they knew that the Republicans were going to vote on election day.

And so they sent the Carter Center, supposedly democracy experts, out there to certify that the machines were wonderful. And then on election day, all the, all the, all the machines broke down. And so, oh, sorry guys, you can’t vote, right? It was the worst case of voter suppression in this country. Naked, open voter suppression in this country in, in many, many, many decades.

And so, so the first thing to understand is that when we look at what happened in, in 2012 and 2016, where they launched the Russia hoax to try and keep first to keep Donald Trump out of office, and then to damage his presidency and damage his campaign in 2020. That was, that was a collaboration by government agencies and the press and [01:01:00] corporations to rig the environment, to, to, to make an unlevel playing field.

And so those elections could not be free and fair, regardless of what happened on election day. And of course, there’s a fantastic amount of evidence of cheating on election day. In 2020, you know, when we were overseas, we had the, the National Academy of Science develop statistical tools for analyzing elections to, to determine whether or not those elections have been free and fair.

We could find statistical anomalies and, and we could determine that there were problems in that election. And overseas, the United States evaluated elections using those tools and said whether or not those elections were free and fair based on the results of those statistical analysis. But when those same statistical tools were applied in the United States, they show fraud everywhere.

Yeah. But they weren’t good enough in the United States. Tim, do you remember this? March 19th, 2022, New York, New York Post. It talks about the spies who lied. [01:02:00] Clapper and Brennan in the center there. And there’s the 51 folks who signed in. To the fact that the Hunter Biden’s laptop was nothing more than Russian collusion.

And it had the intelligence agencies involved in that, in that. And none of them are in jail now, even though they all lied. Pardon me? None of them are in jail now. Even though they don’t lie. Yeah, so what does that tell you? And, and here you, you, you, you see Trump trying to be brought in to go to jail or, you know, charged for a crime with less evidence.

Yeah. We have the evidence right under our nose about that laptop, and the evidence on it is clear and convincing. And, and there’s no clear crime with Trump that I can see that has, involves damages. Or or, or anything else. It’s all, it’s a breakdown in the rule of law. And, and we talk a lot about rule of law overseas and, and we have no rule of law in the United States anymore.

We have the judicial institutions have been [01:03:00] captured by the left and are wholly politicized exactly the way we would see them in any authoritarian dictatorship overseas. So what do you do up as they go along? And so what do you do, what do you do as a contributor to a new regime coming in?

Foundationally, what, what, what, so one thing I noticed when I was overseas for 30 years was when we started, we used to do a lot of civic education, teach people the culture of democracy and what it means to be a citizen in a democratic society and a democratic country. And and over the course of times, we got less and less funding for those types of programs.

And when I came back to the United States, I finally realized that, that it had been de emphasized overseas because it was de emphasized in the United States. And the fundamental problem we have now is we’ve raised several generations of people that don’t understand what it means to be a citizen, that don’t understand rule of law, that we’ve removed morality [01:04:00] from the schools.

We used to teach right and wrong in schools. No one teaches anyone right and wrong anymore. Instead, what we have is political correctness, which is whatever is politically convenient. And so we have entire generations of people that have no moral core. We have, we have an entire political movement, the Democratic Party, that believes the end justifies the means.

So if they lie, they cheat, they steal, they murder, as long as that advances the political agenda, in their mind, that’s the moral course, right? Because that’s the politically correct course. And so fixing that, Well, it first takes a recognition of it, and then it’s going to take decades. I don’t, I don’t know.

It’s not a, I don’t think it’s something that, that you can do overnight, but I think it starts from the idea that we will not have a democracy if we don’t raise citizens that, that understand what democracy is. Well, you described it. Right. Yeah. Right and wrong. You described it purposely, and they [01:05:00] decide how right and wrong is what it is.

As you said overseas, you were teaching the concept first. Well, that teaching has been lost in the schools. I submit that it can be brought back, but after we dissolve the Department of Education and let the states get together like a convention of states, create a standard of education. That exists now.

So the SATs can be this, the baseline with exams for getting into college and similar examination processes for other areas of expertise. You know, this DEI equivalence, I don’t care what the social or sexual proclivities are of a pilot. I’m more concerned about whether he can fly the damn thing. Yeah.

So and, and that the best in the class gets the job first. So how about, I’m sorry, but a rank order of success where if the criteria is fair and balanced for giving everybody the [01:06:00] opportunity to succeed. Folks, we’ve been running a little long today with Tim Meisberger, who is a, I would call him a democracy specialist, who, an election specialist.

He was serving overseas for the greater part of his life for, for America in different ways, and then came back in to the United States around 2016, where he had the privilege of jumping on board the Trump administration, and has contributed in that environment directly and indirectly since. Yeah, I had the privilege of meeting Tim at the CNP, the Convention and National Conference for National Policy.

And, and it’s been a wonderful time talking with you today, Tim. We could go on, but our fundamental issues are stand up and defend our rights. Stand up and make sure that the integrity of the system works. Keep an eye on the merits of the voting process this November [01:07:00] 2024. Be part of a group of people that are looking over what’s called election integrity.

Any plug on election integrity real quick? Yeah, I would say that that, that we as American citizens deserve to be confident in the integrity and legitimacy of our elections and that our election processes right now are, are insecure, many of them, and that what we need are election processes that are transparent and verifiable, right?

We should be able to verify that those, the, that, that those elections were credible and what that means in the shortest possible terms. And right now, I think what it means is manual elections and hand counted paper ballots. One day of elections. We don’t need more than one day. France does it in one day.

We used to do it in one day. When we have in Virginia, we have six weeks of elections, 45 days of elections, and we have 45 nights of elections. It’s impossible to [01:08:00] ensure that those elections are free and fair. And then the last point is no mail in ballots. We know as election professionals that mail in ballots are insecure.

We introduced absentee ballots so our soldiers overseas could could vote, but we know they’re insecure. They’ve been cheating in mail in ballots forever, and we should just limit it to the traditional absentee ballot and get rid of all the rest of it and clean up the voter rolls. And that’s it. It’s a pretty simple agenda to return to a transparent and verifiable election process.

It’s pretty simple. I couldn’t agree more. I think s sick and the infirmed who would like to vote obviously can have some mechanism in place to vote by mail, of course, or absentee. But the or we can send a polling team over to their house. There you go. . We go to the hospital, we go to, to shut ins. We just send a mobile team around and they go and take your.

That’s right. Not to mention our military folks overseas and all our agencies overseas. They certainly have a [01:09:00] right to vote too. It might require a few days early. But it doesn’t require, all I know to your first point, Florida was wrapped up with his vote in the last presidential election before 10 p. m.

And here you have Arizona and, and, and other, other areas two, three months later, still don’t have the vote counting. Yeah. And we did manual elections overseas for, like in Indonesia, it was 207 million voters, I think, or 180 million voters, 207 million citizens. And we did it in one day, obviously, no worries.

Actually, they have a instead of marking with a pencil, they take a nail and they poke a hole through the, normally through a picture of the candidate, and normally they do through the forehead. So, I don’t know what that means, but it’s a weird way of marking a ballot, but that’s how they marked the ballots.

But we counted them all in one day, so. It’s certainly possible to do. And and we as Americans, we deserve elections. We can be confident in it. There’s, there’s, I, is [01:10:00] Joe Biden legitimate? Obviously not. Right. But you wouldn’t, yeah, Rona McDaniel recently on MSNBC tried to suggest the election was legitimate.

Yeah, well, I don’t know why she would want to say that, but, but I, I am, it’s my job for 30 years to evaluate the quality of elections, and I can tell you that it wasn’t, it was not fair. Not fair. We’re out of time, Tim. Would you like to offer any closing comments or summary or help our viewers and listeners with a focus on a thought or a key message or two?

Yeah, no, I, I, I think I said what I wanted to say about elections. I want people to really demand. Free and fair elections to make just you are the democracy activists. Just go out there and demand it. Say we want to have free and fair elections. I think if you want to read about my, my recommendations for elections, you can find those mostly at, uh, American Greatness.

You just search my name and American Greatness. I got several articles on election [01:11:00] reform there, and if you’re interested in foreign assistance, you’ll find my stuff at Heritage. Yeah, folks go to Google too. You can go to and just Google. Tim Weisberger. M-E-I-S-B-E-R-G-E-R, and this is B-U-R-B-E oh, excuse me.

B-E-R-G-U-R. B U R G E R. B U R G E R. Just like cheeseburger. They used to call me that when I was a kid, so it’s easy to remember. The Mize Burger. You got it. I appreciate the clarification. And and thank you for joining us today. We’ve got to have you back. Do you have anything pending in your agenda over the next two or three months that might be worthy of a follow up?

No, I’m, I’m, I’m working again. I spent last year working with the Heritage Foundation as a fellow and now I’m back working on the election. I told them I was working on Project 2025 there, which is the big program to get people, good people together for the next conservative [01:12:00] administration. And it’s making the left’s head blow up because we’re getting organized in that way.

But I told them that I said, this is okay, but we have to win the election. And so I’m really focused on Election integrity. Right now I’m working with the America Project who I worked with it before 2022 as well. And, and we have some events going on and working mostly in the battleground states. So you may see me on that.

And if you’re interested in election integrity, drop me a note and happy to talk about it. So. That’s great, Timothy. Thank you so much. And thank you, folks, for another episode, another edition of Gene Valentino’s Grassroots Truthcast. Our guest this week has been Tim Meisberger and he’s a, he’s a real patriot.

He’s a democracy specialist, he’s an election integrity specialist, and he’s working his life to help protect America and its future. And we’re glad he’s back in the states worrying about our democracy here in the states first. While our benevolence has [01:13:00] always been to help others, we do need to get our house in order now.

Thank you again for another episode of Gene Valentino’s Grassroots Truthcast.

Gene Valentino: Hi friends, Gene Valentino from the Grassroots Truthcast. You’ve got to join us, not only for the great shows and entertainment and guests, but you’ve got to join us because our sponsorship is growing and it would mean a lot to them, not to mention me, if you come on board. And the one we’re featuring this week is Luis Sanchez from The Cigar Shop.

He owns a company called La Tradicion Cubana. The Cigar Shop, Miami, Florida, since 1995. Five. This Luis is really one heck of a guy. He’s determined to manufacture cigars based on an unprecedented excellence in quality using old fashioned Cuban methods. The cigar isn’t always cheaper. But it is better, and if, like, you’re drinking a fine wine, you gotta have a [01:14:00] fine cigar, look for Luis Sanchez at The Cigar Shop.

He helped me find a nice Connecticut wrapper with a Nicaraguan blend, and this cigar has become not only my, my enjoyment. But this cigar has also become my brand and my marketing tool. You notice up close, we’ve got a little label he’s put on there for me. It’s called, it’s, and that’s my website, GeneValentino.

com. It’s at the Grassroots Truthcast. Now here’s the deal. You go to thecubanshop. com, find the cigar you want, and Luis will Get, throw in the labels for free, but you got to tell them Gene sent you. Tell Louise Gene sent you. The labels are free. These are 50 to 100 values based on the count. And you can get this to become part of your branding [01:15:00] experiment.

I’m using this with my guests on the Grassroots Truthcasts. This could be your brand on your product. Your service anywhere in the world. Look for Luis Sanchez at thecubanshop. com. Thanks for joining us. Enjoy your smoke.