Suddenly Everyone Remembers All The Other Inventors Who Ended up Deleted or Silenced.

The system does not want you driving something that cuts fuel use in half because that kills the cash flow from gas, repairs, and constant upgrades. They load new cars with heavy junk, computers, and safety features that make them thirsty on purpose.

 

Older trucks and small diesels from decades ago ran circles around this garbage while costing way less to keep on the road. The truth is they have had the tech to free people from the pump for years but buried it every single time.

People cheer this inventor like he is a hero while quietly wondering how long before he has an accident or gets bought out and shut down. The same game has played out forever. Patents get purchased then disappear. Guys who figure out water fuel or super carburetors do not live long enough to change anything. Regular working people stay trapped paying through the nose for fuel and parts because the big players protect their profits over everything else. It is not about the environment or safety. It is about keeping control of your wallet and your choices.

 

Stop waiting for them to hand you better options. They never will. Buy used, keep it simple and light, and do not fall for the latest overpriced computer on wheels.

The game stays rigged as long as people keep buying the lie that this is the best we can do. Real progress gets crushed every time it threatens the money machine. Wake up and keep your old reliable ride running because that is the closest most folks will ever get to real freedom on the road.

 

 

---

Share

---

FAIR USE COPYRIGHT NOTICE:

https://substack.com/@originalbrutaltruth  JUNE 2026 The Copyright Laws of the United States recognizes a “fair use” of copyrighted content. The videos and YouTube channel in general may contain certain copyrighted works that were not specifically authorized to be used by the copyright holder(s), but which we believe in good faith are protected by federal law and the fair use doctrine for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, parody, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. All video is for educational purposes only. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.

 

Sharia Tribunals Undermine American Law in US Cities

A House Judiciary subcommittee hearing in the Rayburn House Office Building exposed how Sharia based tribunals function inside the United States.

 

Researcher Amy Mekelburg testified about these parallel systems active in at least a dozen cities. She pointed to the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America and the Fiqh Council of North America as key groups involved.

These tribunals handle family disputes, divorces, and other matters according to Islamic law instead of American statutes. Rep. Harriet Hageman questioned the witness on how these setups deny women and children basic protections guaranteed by the Constitution. Equal protection under the law, due process, and rights against cruel punishment stand at risk when religious rulings replace court decisions.

 

Mekelburg described how these bodies issue fatwas that address apostasy and blasphemy on United States soil. Traditional Sharia penalties for leaving Islam or criticizing it include severe consequences that clash directly with First Amendment freedoms. American courts have sometimes deferred to such rulings in arbitration cases, creating a two tier legal reality for certain communities.

The Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America provides guidance tailored for Muslims in the West. Its work includes fatwas and studies on applying Islamic jurisprudence in American life. Critics argue this creates separate rules that prioritize Sharia over federal and state law in private disputes.

 

Women face unequal treatment in many Sharia family rulings on inheritance, custody, and divorce. Testimony highlighted cases where girls born in America receive less protection than the Constitution demands. Children in these systems risk early marriage or limited education aligned with religious norms rather than public standards.

The Fiqh Council of North America has addressed apostasy in its own rulings. It states that apostasy alone does not require capital punishment under its interpretation. Yet broader Islamic sources and some overseas practices maintain harsher views, raising questions about consistency when tribunals operate here.

 

Organizations named in the hearing have not issued public responses to the specific claims. One tribunal website reportedly altered founding language after scrutiny. Democratic members at the hearing shifted focus away from the details presented.

This situation raises direct questions about the supremacy of the Constitution. The Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Fourteenth Amendments ensure fair trials, equal rights, and protection from private coercion.

 

When religious tribunals gain practical authority, those guarantees weaken for affected individuals who cannot easily exit the system.

Americans expect one set of laws applied equally. Parallel structures based on foreign religious codes undermine that principle. Lawmakers must decide whether to enforce clear boundaries or allow continued erosion of constitutional authority in communities across the country.

 

 

---

Address Links:

https://judiciary.house.gov/committee-activity/hearings/sharia-free-america-why-political-islam-sharia-law-are-incompatible-0 

https://www.amjaonline.org/ 

https://fiqhcouncil.org/ 

https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-judiciary.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/mekelburg-testimony.pdf 

Share

---

Sharing is Caring!

@1TheBrutalTruth1 MAY 2026 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.

 

Rhode Island Mom Sued After Asking to See Kindergarten Curriculum

A Rhode Island mother, Nicole Solas, became a national example in the school transparency debate after she asked to see what her daughter would be taught in kindergarten and then used public records requests to obtain the information. She has said she was trying to understand classroom content tied to topics like race and gender, while school and union supporters have argued districts must balance transparency with staff time, privacy rules, and records laws.
Source: https://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/nea-sues-mom-for-asking-questions-about-curriculum/ Goldwater Institute

In 2021, the National Education Association and its Rhode Island affiliate filed a lawsuit connected to Solas’s public records requests, and the dispute quickly became political. Critics viewed the lawsuit as a warning shot to parents who ask questions. Others saw it as part of a broader conflict over how public-records requests should be handled when a district says the volume of requests is overwhelming or disruptive.
Source: https://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/nea-sues-mom-for-asking-questions-about-curriculum/ Goldwater Institute

The case also drew attention because of the costs attached to getting the records. Reporting and legal commentary around the dispute described a large fee estimate for producing records tied to curriculum-related requests, which Solas and her supporters argued functioned like a barrier to access. Districts and their attorneys often respond that large requests can require extensive searching, review, and redaction work, and that state law sometimes allows fees for that labor.
Source: https://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/union-withdraws-attempt-to-obstruct-rhode-island-moms-access-to-public-records/ Goldwater Institute

Over time, the situation shifted from a single parent-school dispute into a larger argument about parental rights and public accountability. Solas’s supporters framed her as a parent punished for asking basic questions. Critics of the viral framing say the “sued for asking” description can leave out the legal details, including how the requests were submitted, how the district responded, and what parts of the conflict were about records compliance rather than the curriculum itself.
Source: https://www.golocalprov.com/news/ri-school-committee-considers-suing-woman-for-hundreds-of-apras-questioning GoLocalProv

More recently, advocacy updates have claimed Solas ultimately won key points in court related to transparency and records handling, and that her legal fight pressured local officials to change how they respond to similar requests. At the same time, school systems in Rhode Island and elsewhere argue that broad records demands can become expensive quickly, especially when they require searching old systems, pulling large volumes of documents, and reviewing material for student and employee privacy protections.
Source: https://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/victory-in-mothers-fight-against-school-districts-lies/ Goldwater Institute

The larger question raised by this clip is straightforward: should parents have the right to know what their kids are being taught. Many conservatives argue full curriculum transparency is a basic parental right and a safeguard against political or ideological instruction. Many middle-of-the-road observers agree parents deserve clear access to curriculum, while also expecting guardrails that prevent harassment, protect private data, and keep requests workable for schools with limited staff.
Source: https://libertycenter.org/cases/solas/ Center for American Liberty

Photos and videos:
Fox News video featuring Nicole Solas discussing the dispute: https://www.foxnews.com/video/6322166490112 Fox News
YouTube interview clip referencing the lawsuit and curriculum questions:

 

Please Like & Share 😉🪽
@1TheBrutalTruth1 DEC. 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.

 

YouTube

 

 

Pointing a laser at Marine One—the helicopter used to transport the President of the United States—is treated as a serious federal offense, not a prank. 

DON'T POINT LASERS AT MARINE ONE! #trump #lazer #presidenttrump #foryou #shorts #fypシ

 

Any laser illumination of an aircraft is dangerous, but when it involves a presidential transport, it triggers an immediate security response. Pilots can be temporarily blinded, flight instruments disrupted, and the incident is assumed to be a potential hostile act until proven otherwise.

From a security standpoint, Marine One operates under the assumption that any interference could be an assassination attempt or reconnaissance. Law enforcement and federal agencies will respond fast, using ground teams, aviation assets, and electronic tracking to locate the source. People caught aiming lasers at aircraft—especially Marine One—can face felony charges, heavy fines, prison time, and lifelong federal scrutiny.

The bottom line is simple: lasers and aircraft do not mix, and lasers and presidential aircraft are treated as a national security threat. What might seem harmless for a second can escalate into a situation with permanent consequences.

 

 

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 DEC. 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.

 

Two men from North Texas are facing federal conspiracy charges after investigators uncovered a disturbing plan that authorities say involved invading a small Haitian island, killing the men who lived there, and enslaving women and children. 

Suspects plan to murder all Island's men, enslave women

 

Two North Texas men were indicted after plotting to invade a Haitian island, kill its men and enslave women and children, according to officials. Gavin Weisenburg and Tanner Thomas now face charges of conspiracy to murder abroad.

According to the indictment, Gavin Weisenburg and Tanner Thomas spent months talking about their fantasy operation, treating it like a real-world mission rather than an online role-play. 

Officials say they discussed weapons, logistics, recruitment, and even how they would divide up people afterward—details that pushed the case beyond talk and into criminal intent.

Investigators allege the pair were driven by a warped worldview influenced by violent dominance, territorial conquest, and the idea of taking control by force. The conversations described in the indictment show the two men treating the plan like an adventure or a power fantasy, using language that sounded more like something pulled out of a pulp novel than real life. Yet authorities say they were serious enough to draw federal attention, leading to charges of conspiracy to murder abroad and other related offenses that carry severe penalties.

According to the Justice Department, the men communicated about traveling to Haiti by boat, selecting an island they believed they could overpower with minimal resistance. Officials say they discussed killing the adult men on the island, using violence to intimidate survivors, and forcing women and children into servitude. The indictment claims they also talked about arming themselves and raising funds, demonstrating intent rather than idle imagining. What began as disturbing conversations eventually crossed into actionable planning, triggering the investigation that resulted in their arrest.

Federal agents arrested the men before they could make any attempt to travel. The case highlights how modern digital communication gives law enforcement a window into extremist fantasies before they escalate into real-world harm. Authorities say that in this instance, the men spoke with such detail and seriousness that intervention became necessary to prevent potential violence. Their initial court appearance revealed little emotion, and both now face the full weight of federal prosecution as they await trial.

Although the alleged plot sounds chaotic and bizarre—almost like fiction—the charges reflect the seriousness of planning violence against foreign civilians. Prosecutors emphasize that harm abroad is treated the same as harm at home if U.S. citizens are involved. The case stands as another example of how dangerous ideology, isolation, and violent fantasy can mix into something volatile, even when the plans seem unhinged. Now, with the indictment filed, it will be up to the court to determine how far the men truly intended to go and what consequences they will face.

 

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.