NOVEMBER 2025
🍁🍂🍁🍂🍁🍂🍁🍂🍁
🔥THE UNKNOWN PATRIOT REBEL & ORIGINAL BRUTAL TRUTH SHOW🔥
Meeting of Informed Minds
🔥THE UNKNOWN PATRIOT REBEL & ORIGINAL BRUTAL TRUTH SHOW Oct 16th. 2025🔥
THIS IS A DISCUSSION BETWEEN TWO INFORMED MINDS - THE ORIGINAL BRUTAL TRUTH MEETS THE UNKNOWN PATRIOT REBEL.
THEY WILL PRESENT ISSUES AND BRING THEIR IDEAS, VIEWPOINTS AND TRUTH TO YOU TO THINK ABOUT AND DECIDE FOR YOURSELF. THIS IS A NO HOLDS BARRED PODCAST SO BE PREPARED FOR HARDCORE TRUTH.
The Brutal Truth Video Show
Join us as our subject matters are -
The Battle of Ezekiel 38, Is This the Antichrist Era?, News of the Week, and more!
New York’s new gun seizure law expands state authority to remove firearms when a domestic violence call is made, even before a conviction or formal charge is filed.
PAY ATTENTION: New Law MANDATES Gun Confiscation! Police ORDERED To Seize Firearms! New York has passed a sweeping new gun seizure law tied to domestic violence calls.
What does this mean for lawful gun owners, due process, and the future of Second Amendment rights?
PAY ATTENTION: New Law MANDATES Gun Confiscation! Police ORDERED To Seize Firearms!
Supporters say it’s designed to protect potential victims by allowing police or courts to act quickly when a credible threat exists. But critics warn it sets a dangerous precedent — allowing weapons to be confiscated based on accusations alone, with due process following after the fact rather than before.
For lawful gun owners, this means any dispute that brings law enforcement to a home could trigger temporary loss of firearms, pending investigation or review.
It also raises broader constitutional questions about how far states can go in restricting access to guns without violating the Second Amendment or undermining the presumption of innocence.
The move reflects a growing national trend toward “preventive” gun laws tied to emotional or domestic situations, signaling that the next major fight over gun rights may not be about background checks, but about who decides when someone is too dangerous to own a weapon — and whether that power can be trusted.
Please Like & Share 😉🪽
@1TheBrutalTruth1 Nov. 2025 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.
Ted Cruz Introduces Bill to Target Foreign Funding of U.S. Protests Under RICO Law
If enacted, Cruz’s proposal could mark a major turning point in how protest movements are funded, monitored, and prosecuted—signaling a new phase in the long-running fight over money, politics, and influence in American civic life.
Senator Ted Cruz has introduced new legislation aimed at blocking what he describes as “foreign-influenced” money fueling organized protest movements across the United States.
At today's Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) promoted his Stop the Funders Act, and questioned Andrew Duva, nominee to be an Assistant Attorney General.
Ted Cruz Promotes New Law To 'To Combat The 21st Century Leftist Riots That Have Burned Our Cities'
The proposal seeks to classify large-scale coordination or financing of politically motivated unrest as potential racketeering activity under the RICO Act—an unprecedented expansion of the law traditionally used against criminal syndicates.
Cruz’s measure was sparked by growing concern among conservatives that foreign foundations, including those linked to billionaire George Soros, have quietly funneled money through nonprofit networks to influence domestic demonstrations and civil-disobedience campaigns. The bill would authorize federal authorities to investigate the financial trail behind protest logistics, and—if foreign involvement or deliberate coordination to incite violence is proven—freeze accounts tied to those operations.
Supporters call the move long overdue, arguing it closes a loophole that allows global actors to manipulate American politics through proxy organizations. Critics, however, warn it could chill free-speech rights and allow the government to label peaceful dissent as criminal conspiracy. Legal scholars are divided over how far RICO could stretch before running afoul of First Amendment protections.
If enacted, Cruz’s proposal could mark a major turning point in how protest movements are funded, monitored, and prosecuted—signaling a new phase in the long-running fight over money, politics, and influence in American civic life.
Yes — the discussion about ending or restricting dual citizenship for U.S. elected officials and government employees is part of what’s driving recent legislative proposals in Washington. Here’s a breakdown of how this issue stands:
What’s Already Allowed
-
U.S. law does not prohibit citizens from holding dual (or multiple) nationalities. The U.S. Department of State says a U.S. citizen may also be citizen of another country (“dual nationality”), and U.S. law doesn’t require renouncing the foreign citizenship simply because one holds U.S. citizenship.
-
For many federal jobs, especially those without access to classified information, dual citizenship is not automatically disqualifying.
-
That said, dual nationality can raise concerns in security-clearance eligibility: loyalty, foreign influence or preference become questions to address.
What’s Being Proposed
-
A recent bill, the “Dual Loyalty Disclosure Act” (H.R. 2356) introduced by Thomas Massie in March 2025 seeks to require federal candidates to publicly disclose any foreign citizenship they hold. The bill also suggests members of Congress holding dual citizenship should renounce their non-U.S. citizenship or at least recuse themselves from votes affecting that foreign country.
-
The bill reflects a sentiment among some lawmakers that foreign citizenship—even if legally held—is inconsistent with the appearance of undivided allegiance to the United States.
The Why Behind It
-
The push is being framed as a national security and foreign-influence control issue: those advocating the change argue that dual citizenship for key public officials may allow divided loyalty or raise potential for foreign leverage.
-
It’s also tied to concerns about transparency in government: making sure voters know whether a candidate owes allegiance to another state, or could be influenced by it, is part of the argument.
-
The relevance to regulation of protest funding or foreign money (as you asked earlier) is indirect but real: if foreign national or dual-citizen actors are involved in funding or organizing political action in the U.S., then the role of officials who may have foreign ties comes under fresh scrutiny.
My Assessment
So yes — the issue that's pointed to is part of the conversation, though it’s not solely about Israel (or any specific country). It’s about how Americans view the citizenship status and foreign allegiance of elected officials and government employees. Whether or not dual citizenship will be banned outright for Congress or senior government positions remains uncertain — but disclosure, and broadened scrutiny, appear to be near-term outcomes.
Which members of Congress currently hold dual citizenship, what the law specifically says on eligibility and renunciation, and what opponents of the bill say about constitutional implications..
1) “Which members currently have dual citizenship?”
There is no official list, and Congress does not require members or candidates to disclose a second nationality. As a result, no one can provide a definitive, up-to-date roster. Fact-checkers repeatedly debunk circulating lists that claim dozens of members (often alleging Israeli dual citizenship) without evidence. The bottom line: unless an individual voluntarily discloses it (as Sen. Ted Cruz did before he renounced Canadian citizenship in 2014), the information isn’t public.
2) What current law actually says (eligibility & renunciation)
-
Eligibility to serve in Congress:
The Constitution sets minimal qualifications only—age, years of U.S. citizenship (7 for the House, 9 for the Senate), and residency in the electing state. It does not require sole U.S. citizenship, and there is no ban on dual citizens serving. -
Dual citizenship under U.S. law:
The State Department recognizes that U.S. citizens may also be nationals of another country; U.S. law does not force citizens to choose one nationality. -
Naturalization oath & “renunciation”:
New citizens swear an oath to “renounce and abjure” allegiance to any foreign state (8 U.S.C. § 1448). In practice, this oath does not automatically cancel the other country’s citizenship if that foreign legal system still recognizes it—hence many naturalized Americans remain dual nationals. -
Losing U.S. citizenship (renunciation of U.S. status):
The Supreme Court has held that citizenship can’t be taken away involuntarily; loss requires the citizen’s intent to relinquish it (Afroyim v. Rusk; Vance v. Terrazas).
3) The new proposals & what opponents argue constitutionally
Recent GOP proposals take two different tacks:
-
Disclosure: Require candidates to state whether they hold another citizenship (e.g., Rep. Thomas Massie’s Dual Loyalty Disclosure Act, H.R. 2356, introduced Mar. 26, 2025; and Rep. Tim Burchett’s H.R. 7484 in 2024).
-
Disqualification: Ban dual citizens from serving unless they renounce foreign citizenship before election (Rep. Randy Fine’s Disqualifying Dual Loyalty Act, Oct. 27, 2025).
Opponents say a categorical ban (or any added condition on candidacy/service) would likely be unconstitutional because it adds qualifications beyond the Constitution’s fixed list. They point to Supreme Court precedents:
-
Powell v. McCormack (1969) — the House can’t refuse to seat a duly elected member who meets the constitutional qualifications.
-
U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton (1995) — neither Congress nor the states may augment the constitutional qualifications for House/Senate.
On disclosure-only bills, critics raise different concerns: potential privacy issues; disproportionate impact on naturalized Americans; and the risk of stigmatizing or chilling participation by immigrant communities—even if such measures might survive scrutiny more easily than an outright ban. (For context on the push and counter-arguments in public debate, see coverage of Massie’s proposal.)
Snapshot answer:
-
There’s no verified list of dual-citizen members; Congress doesn’t track it.
-
Current law allows dual citizens to serve; the Constitution doesn’t require exclusive U.S. citizenship.
-
Naturalization includes a renunciation oath, but U.S. policy and case law mean foreign citizenship often still persists unless the person (or the foreign state) ends it.
-
Bans on dual-citizen members likely conflict with Powell/Thornton because they add qualifications; disclosure mandates raise civil-liberties concerns but are a different, narrower question.
Short answer: No—Congress didn’t “legalize Israeli funding of U.S. politics.” U.S. law already bans foreign nationals (from any country) from giving to U.S. candidates, parties, super PACs, or making election expenditures, and that includes Israeli citizens and entities. That prohibition sits in 52 U.S.C. §30121 and FEC rules, and it’s been upheld in court (Bluman v. FEC).
So how does influence happen? Three legal channels that are not campaign donations:
-
Government-to-government aid & joint programs (e.g., the U.S.–Israel BIRD R&D funds, and appropriated military aid under a 10-year MOU). Those are public appropriations or binational programs—not private political money.
-
U.S. advocacy groups (e.g., pro-Israel organizations) that are incorporated and funded in the U.S.; their PACs may take only U.S. citizen/green-card money per FEC rules.
-
Foreign principals lobbying in the U.S. must register under FARA; failure to do so is prosecutable.
One nuance: the FEC has said the federal foreign-money ban doesn’t cover state/local ballot initiatives (not candidate elections), unless a state bans it—creating a loophole some worry could be exploited by any foreign source, not country-specific. Many states have since moved to close it.
Bottom line: debates about Israel’s influence are mostly about policy, lobbying, and U.S.-based donors/organizations, plus large U.S. appropriations—not legalized foreign campaign money. If a foreign government, entity, or citizen were to fund U.S. election activity directly, that’s still illegal under federal law.
Please Like & Share 😉🪽
@1TheBrutalTruth1 Nov. 2025 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.
Federal Agencies Raid Massachusetts State House: 8 Kilos of Cocaine Reportedly Seized from Governor’s Office
A shocking federal operation has rocked Massachusetts’ political establishment after FBI, ICE, and DEA agents jointly raided the State House in Boston, where officials say they uncovered eight kilograms of cocaine allegedly found inside or near the governor’s office.
At 5:12 a.m. on October 29th, 2025, federal agents raided a Massachusetts state office linked to Deputy Director Lamar Cook. What began as a single drug trafficking case soon unfolded into a sweeping federal probe — exposing how official courier routes may have been exploited to move cartel-grade narcotics under state insignia.
FBI, ICE & DEA raid Massachusetts State House — 8 kilos of cocaine seized inside GOVERNOR’S OFFICE!
The coordinated raid, which took place early this morning, has sent shockwaves through the state’s political circles and sparked nationwide attention.
Witnesses described a massive federal presence at the historic building, with agents in tactical gear securing entrances and escorting several staffers out for questioning. Federal authorities have not yet released an official statement confirming any arrests, though law enforcement sources indicate that multiple employees are under investigation for possible trafficking, distribution, and corruption-related charges.
The discovery of such a large amount of narcotics within one of the most secure and symbolically powerful government buildings in New England raises unprecedented questions about internal oversight and how the drugs made their way inside. Officials have reportedly sealed off parts of the building as forensic teams conduct searches for evidence and trace materials.
State and federal leaders are remaining tight-lipped, but political analysts warn that the fallout could be enormous — potentially leading to resignations, criminal indictments, and a crisis of public trust in Massachusetts leadership. The investigation is ongoing, and more details are expected as federal agencies prepare to brief the media once preliminary findings are confirmed.
Please Like & Share 😉🪽
@1TheBrutalTruth1 Nov. 2025 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.
Candace Owens SLAMS TPUSA Leadership Over Charlie Kirk Shooting
Some observers believe Owens may have been cautioned to de-escalate, given the potential for a larger scandal involving Turning Point’s internal security and crisis protocols. Others argue she’s simply exercising responsibility in an era when truth and timing can both be weaponized.
In her latest statement, Owens clarified that her remarks were not intended as accusations but as observations of how public crises can appear confusing in real time.
Candace Owens DESTROYS TPUSA Execs Over Charlie Kirk Assassination! Candace Owens has responded to criticism of her speculation about Turning Point USA staffer Mikey McCoy’s curious behavior immediately after Charlie Kirk’s shooting. Owens defends McCoy by acknowledging he may have been following pre-set emergency instructions or reacting in shock, although Jimmy finds those claims less than plausible and questions inconsistencies in TPUSA’s narrative.
Candace Owens DESTROYS TPUSA Execs Over Charlie Kirk Assassination!
Political commentator Candace Owens has addressed the backlash over her comments surrounding Turning Point USA staffer Mikey McCoy’s actions immediately following the shooting of TPUSA founder Charlie Kirk. Critics had accused Owens of fueling speculation about McCoy’s “unusual calm” and behavior during the chaotic aftermath, suggesting something “didn’t add up.”
In her latest statement, Owens clarified that her remarks were not intended as accusations but as observations of how public crises can appear confusing in real time. She defended McCoy, saying he may have been following internal emergency instructions or simply reacting in shock, describing such responses as natural under duress. Owens emphasized that people often misread body language when analyzing footage after the fact, especially during traumatic events.
However, her co-host and political ally Jimmy Dore expressed skepticism, questioning inconsistencies in Turning Point’s handling of the situation and why key details remain unverified. He pointed to gaps in the group’s public timeline and called for transparency about what security protocols were in place that day.
Owens’ careful recalibration has fueled deeper debate about what’s really happening behind the public narrative. While she insists that conjecture shouldn’t replace hard proof, her earlier instincts about McCoy’s behavior continue to resonate with those who sense more beneath the surface. The rapid shift from suspicion to restraint has drawn attention to the subtle power of controlled messaging in conservative circles—how key figures often temper their tone once an internal directive is felt.
Some observers believe Owens may have been cautioned to de-escalate, given the potential for a larger scandal involving Turning Point’s internal security and crisis protocols. Others argue she’s simply exercising responsibility in an era when truth and timing can both be weaponized.
Either way, her response shows the uneasy balance between loyalty to allies and the growing awareness that not all political fires burn where the public can see them.
Please Like & Share 😉🪽
@1TheBrutalTruth1 Nov. 2025 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.
Candace Owens Interviews Norman Finkelstein
Norman Finkelstein is an American political scientist, author, and commentator best known for his controversial and outspoken criticism of Israeli policies and U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East.
Born in Brooklyn, New York, in 1953 to Holocaust survivors, his family background profoundly shaped his moral and political worldview.
Candace sits down with Norman to discuss Israel, the holocaust, and his upcoming book, GAZA’S GRAVEDIGGERS An Inquiry into Corruption in High Places.
Candace Owens x Norman Finkelstein - YouTube
Born in Brooklyn, New York, in 1953 to Holocaust survivors, his family background profoundly shaped his moral and political worldview. Finkelstein earned his Ph.D. in political science from Princeton University and has since written several books examining the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, the use of Holocaust memory in politics, and the ethics of war and occupation.
Finkelstein rose to prominence in the late 1990s with his book The Holocaust Industry, in which he argued that some institutions and individuals have exploited Holocaust remembrance for financial and political gain. The book sparked heated debate, earning both praise for its courage and condemnation for its tone and accusations. Over the years, he has been a sharp critic of Israeli settlement policies and the Gaza blockade, arguing that these actions violate international law and human rights. His work often challenges both American and Israeli establishments, emphasizing the need for justice and accountability rather than historical victimhood as a political tool.
Despite—or perhaps because of—his positions, Finkelstein’s academic career has been fraught with controversy. His tenure denial at DePaul University in 2007 became a national story, viewed by supporters as political retaliation and by critics as an issue of professional conduct. Nevertheless, he remains a significant figure in public debate, known for his sharp intellect, moral conviction, and willingness to confront powerful interests. Finkelstein continues to lecture, write, and participate in discussions about ethics, history, and the ongoing struggle for peace and human rights in the Middle East.
Please Like & Share 😉🪽
@1TheBrutalTruth1 Nov. 2025 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.