YesToHellWith cover art

YesToHellWith

YesToHellWith

By: and may TRUTH reign supreme!
Listen for free

YesToHellWith is determined to expose the wrongful conviction and imprisonment of Orlando Carter. We are asking that President Trump review this injustice and exonerate Carter.

yestohellwith.substack.comyestohellwith Hourly Political Science Politics & Government
Episodes
  • Liberty Dialogues Conference Call

    Liberty Dialogues Conference Call
    Jul 28 2026

    Send an email to info@yestohellwith.com and request Special Access.



    Get full access to YesToHellWith at yestohellwith.substack.com/subscribe
    Show More Show Less
    1 min
  • A Remedy at Hand?

    A Remedy at Hand?
    Jul 28 2026
    The Conversation That Can Restore America.It is July 28, 2026. May I suggest that if you do not listen to this entire video, you may be on a fool’s errand.A few days ago, I posted a video about something I believe lies at the very heart of America’s problems.It wasn’t about the Corporation of 1871.It wasn’t about maritime law.It wasn’t about the Strawman.It wasn’t about the Crown of England, the Vatican, Social Security, redemption, or any of the countless theories that fill the Internet.It was about something much more fundamental.It was about the ability to have a conversation.We no longer know how to converse. I believe there are a number of reasons why, but that is not the focus of this vide.Suffice it to say, if we cannot discipline ourselves to understand another person’s actual point before introducing our own, how can we ever hope to restore a constitutional republic?That is why I keep returning to the subject of conversation.Because conversation is not the destination.It is the bridge.The bridge from confusion to understanding.From understanding to agreement.From agreement to action.And from action to the restoration of rights and freedoms.Now let me ask you a question.What if I told you that you could stop studying almost every theory you’ve ever heard about that supposedly explains what is wrong with America... and still begin restoring freedom?What if you never again had to debate the Corporation of 1871......the Strawman......maritime law......the Crown of England......the Vatican......redemption......or any of the hundreds of competing theories that consume countless hours, countless dollars, and cause endless arguments?Now before someone rushes to the comment section and accuses me of saying those theories are true or false, you’ve already missed the point.This isn’t a conversation about theories.It’s a conversation about remedies.I think most Americans know something is deeply wrong, just as most all countries believe and experience.Government has grown far beyond what our founders envisioned.Freedom seems to diminish year after year.People instinctively know something is broken.But then comes the next question.Now what?For decades, people have offered explanations.Some are fascinating.Some are well researched.Some may even contain elements of truth.But here’s my question.What remedy have they produced for the average American?The average American has a family.A job.Bills to pay.Responsibilities.He doesn’t have ten years to study competing theories.He doesn’t have thousands of dollars to spend following one guru after another.And even if he did...I still ask that important question: What happens next?Will a judge hear those theories?Will an agency acknowledge them?Will a county board make decisions because of them?In most cases, the answer is no.So perhaps we’ve been asking the wrong question.Instead of asking,“Which theory is correct?”Perhaps we should ask,“What solution can ordinary Americans understand, agree upon, and actually implement?”History teaches us something remarkable.No great movement ever required an entire nation to agree on every historical question.It required enough people to agree on a few fundamental principles.So let me ask you something.Could a majority of citizens in your county agree that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land?Could they agree that every public official voluntarily took an oath to support and defend it?Could they agree that the Constitution exists primarily to limit governmental power—not to expand it?Could they agree that constitutional limits exist to preserve the rights and freedoms of the people?Could they agree that local officials should exercise the lawful authority entrusted to them to protect those constitutional limits instead of directing governmental power primarily against the citizens they serve?Those are not complicated theories.They are foundational principles.And notice what just happened.We didn’t have to settle a single debate about the Corporation of 1871.We didn’t have to prove the Strawman.We didn’t have to resolve maritime law.We didn’t have to convince everyone about the Vatican or the Crown.Because if a community agrees on these basic principles, the conversation changes from speculation to responsibility.Now imagine a sheriff who understands the Constitution.A sheriff who understands the limits of governmental authority.A sheriff who understands that his oath is not ceremonial—it is a duty.Imagine that sheriff asking every official who exercises governmental power in his county one simple question:“What constitutional authority authorizes this action?”Now imagine citizens supporting that effort.Imagine them creating careful, documented records of their understanding, their objections, and their interactions with government—not to promote another theory, but to preserve evidence, encourage accountability, and help local officials distinguish between lawful ...
    Show More Show Less
    9 mins
  • The one who knows how not to converse.

    The one who knows how not to converse.
    Jul 27 2026
    The Conversation We Never HadPart 1It’s July 27, 2026. Welcome to YesToHellWith.com.A few days ago, I posted a video about the art of conversation.Not about corporations, maritime law, birth certificates, or Masons.It was about the ability to converse—or not.Yet someone responded by accusing me of choosing “massive neglect in research and willful ignorance over truth.”So let me get this straight.As the author and narrator of the video, I suggested that people need to learn the art of conversation. A viewer immediately introduced an entirely different narrative and condemned me for failing to discuss it.Not once did he address the actual content of my message.And that is exactly why I made the video.I think we’ve forgotten what a conversation actually is.A conversation is two or more people examining the same proposition together. It begins with one question, follows the evidence wherever it leads, reaches a conclusion, and only then earns the right to move on.That is how detectives investigate.That is how scientists conduct research.That is how serious people solve serious problems.Unfortunately, many conversations never get that far.Someone asks one question, and someone else answers a different one—not because they misunderstood, but because they would rather discuss their own subject.That isn’t conversation.It is substitution.Imagine asking your physician why your shoulder hurts, and instead of examining your shoulder, he begins talking about insurance companies, pharmaceutical corporations, and the history of medicine.Those subjects may deserve discussion.But they are not your shoulder.They belong to another conversation.The same thing happens every day.Someone asks about the constitutional responsibility of a sheriff.Someone answers with corporations.Someone asks about due process.Someone answers with maritime law.Someone asks about local government.Someone answers with international banking.Different subjects.The same habit.People are no longer building upon the conversation.They’re replacing it.That brings me to the response I recently received.This person immediately launched into an entirely different narrative involving Crown corporations, U.S. Inc., Masons, birth certificates, commercial courts, banking, and numerous other subjects.Now hear me carefully.I am not saying those subjects are true.I am not saying they are false.That isn’t my point.My point is simple.They were not the conversation.The discussion was about conversations—more specifically, the discipline required to remain focused on one proposition long enough to understand it.So, with a touch of humor, because I had no desire to be disrespectful or condescending, I invited him to listen again to the first thirty or forty-five seconds of the video and simply asked whether he accepted my general point before introducing his own narrative.That was an invitation to return to the original conversation.Instead, this was his response:“You’re sounding a lot like an insecure commie. ... You’re way off, pal, because you’re still very much under mind control and propaganda programming. You’re insecure ass slings destructive insults. I ping constructive criticism seeds intended to uplift from ignorance. ... Very, very strange that your perception of my comment is so queer.”Now stop for just a moment.What part of that response actually addresses my proposition—that conversation requires remaining focused on one question until it has been honestly examined?None of it.Instead, he questioned my intelligence, my motives, my understanding, and my character.Ladies and gentlemen, that is not conversation.It is abandoning one discussion, attempting to replace it with another, and criticizing the other person for refusing to leave the original subject.Ironically, his response became one of the clearest demonstrations of the very point the video was making.This should concern all of us.If every conversation is interrupted by someone’s favorite subject, nothing is ever examined deeply enough to be understood. We simply move from one topic to another without resolving any of them.That is not disciplined thinking.It is intellectual distraction.Now let me go one step further.Throughout the freedom movement, I have watched people introduce increasingly broad explanations for why America is in its present condition.Perhaps some of those explanations deserve careful examination.Perhaps they don’t.That isn’t my point.My point is this:Even if someone sincerely believes they have discovered the explanation for everything, that does not give them license to inject it into every conversation.Every conversation has a purpose and a proposition, and it deserves the discipline of remaining there until it has been honestly examined.Otherwise, nothing is ever resolved.There is also a practical concern.Suppose someone presents an all-encompassing explanation of government, law, finance, medicine, or society.The next question should ...
    Show More Show Less
    8 mins
adbl_web_anon_alc_button_suppression_t1
No reviews yet
In the spirit of reconciliation, Audible acknowledges the Traditional Custodians of country throughout Australia and their connections to land, sea and community. We pay our respect to their elders past and present and extend that respect to all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples today.