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
  • If you are talking about me talking...

    If you are talking about me talking...
    Aug 29 2026

    Go to thelibertydialogues.com and download the entire system for free. THAT IS ACTION.

    Get involved with constitutionalcounty.org. THAT IS ACTION!



    Get full access to YesToHellWith at yestohellwith.substack.com/subscribe
    Show More Show Less
    1 min
  • From your front yard and more!

    From your front yard and more!
    Aug 29 2026
    REGULATORY SATURATIONPart Three — How Did Government Get Into My Front Yard?If you want to understand Regulatory Saturation, don’t start in Washington.Don’t start with Congress.Don’t start with some enormous federal agency.Walk outside your front door.Stand in your own yard.And look around.You bought the property.You maintain it.You pay the mortgage, if there is one.You pay the taxes.You repair the house.You mow the lawn.But now ask a very different question:How many things can government tell you that you may—or may not—do with that property?Can you build another structure?Maybe you need a permit.Can you convert your garage into a bedroom?There may be building and occupancy requirements.Can you operate a business from your house?Check the zoning ordinance.Can you put up a large sign?There may be a sign code.Can you build a fence?There may be rules governing its height and location.Can you park an RV or commercial vehicle on your property?There may be another ordinance for that.How tall can your grass become?There may be a rule.Where can you place your trash containers?There may be a rule.What condition must the exterior of your property remain in?There may be a rule.Even the size and placement of the numbers identifying your house may be regulated.Now stop.Don’t argue whether any particular one of those rules is reasonable.That misses the point.Look at them together.That is Regulatory Saturation.One rule governs the building.Another governs the land.Another governs the grass.Another governs the fence.Another governs the vehicles.Another governs the signs.Another governs what kind of activity can occur there.And each one can be defended separately.Safety.Fire protection.Property values.Traffic.Appearance.Public health.Emergency access.Again, maybe some of those regulations are completely justified.The question is larger.What is the cumulative result?Because eventually something remarkable happens.You still hold title to the property.But an enormous portion of what you may actually do with that property is surrounded by governmental conditions.And that raises a question Americans should be willing to ask:What does ownership mean when so many ordinary uses of ownership require governmental permission?Notice what I did not say.I did not say government cannot regulate property.It can.I did not say zoning is automatically unconstitutional.It isn’t.I did not say building codes are inherently unlawful.They aren’t.Those conclusions would destroy the inquiry before it begins.The question is:Where are the boundaries?And perhaps more importantly:When was the last time anybody required government to identify those boundaries?Because Regulatory Saturation can produce a strange reversal.Instead of government asking:“Do we possess authority to prohibit this?”the property owner begins asking:“Am I allowed to do this?”Think about the difference.One presumes liberty until government demonstrates a lawful limitation.The other begins by searching government regulations to discover what liberty remains.That distinction is enormous.And we have become so accustomed to the second question that most people don’t even recognize what has happened.Someone wants to build a shed.What’s the first question?Do I need a permit?Someone wants to operate a small business from home.Am I allowed?Someone wants to put something on his property.What does the ordinance say?Those may be prudent questions.But there is another question that almost never gets asked:What is the precise source and scope of government’s authority to impose this particular restriction?Now we have arrived at the Liberty Dialogues.Because the LD System does not tell us to walk into city hall screaming:“This is my property! You have no authority!”That is a conclusion.Instead, ask questions.What law authorizes this?What governmental body enacted it?What authority did that body possess?Was authority delegated to this department or official?What is the jurisdictional reach of the ordinance?What facts trigger it?What definitions are controlling?Does my property actually fall within them?What procedure must government follow before enforcement?What hearing or appeal is available?What must government prove?Now something important has happened.We have stopped fighting the government.We have started examining the government’s claim.And that is exactly what Regulatory Saturation makes difficult.Because when thousands of regulations already exist, we instinctively assume the authority behind them has already been established somewhere by somebody.Maybe it has.Then government should be able to demonstrate it.But maybe the particular application depends upon a definition.A factual determination.A jurisdictional predicate.A delegation of authority.A procedure.A presumption.Those things can be examined.And your front yard provides the perfect place to understand the larger principle.Because Regulatory Saturation does not usually arrive with ...
    Show More Show Less
    7 mins
  • Feel like a bug caught within a web?

    Feel like a bug caught within a web?
    Aug 28 2026
    REGULATORY SATURATIONPart Two — One Rule Looks ReasonableIn Part One, we gave a name to something most Americans experience but rarely see as a whole:Regulatory Saturation.Today, I want to explain why it is so difficult to recognize.Because almost every regulation can be made to look reasonable when examined by itself.Your grass cannot exceed a certain height.Why?Community standards.Your house numbers must be a certain size.Why?Emergency services.You need a permit for a shed.Why?Safety.You cannot park a vehicle in a particular place.Why?Traffic and public access.You need a license to perform a particular occupation.Why?Consumer protection.You cannot use your property in a particular way.Why?Zoning.Taken individually, there is almost always an explanation.And that is the trap.Because the citizen experiences these rules collectively.Consider one ordinary person.He wakes up in a house regulated by building codes, zoning ordinances, property-maintenance requirements, fire codes, utility rules, and taxation.He gets into a vehicle that must be titled, registered, inspected where required, insured, and operated according to hundreds of traffic rules.He drives to a business operating under zoning requirements, occupational regulations, tax requirements, employment laws, safety rules, and licensing provisions.He earns money subject to another enormous body of law.He buys food regulated from production to packaging and sale.He returns home to property whose use may be restricted by still another collection of laws and ordinances.And tomorrow he does it again.Here is the important point:No single regulation creates Regulatory Saturation.Accumulation does.Imagine a room.Place one piece of string across that room.Nobody would call it a web.Add another.Still no web.Now add hundreds.Thousands.Crossing one another.Federal.State.County.Municipal.Administrative.Eventually the character of the room changes.And yet if I show you only one string at a time, you may never understand what has happened to the room.That is exactly how we usually discuss regulation.Someone complains about a zoning ordinance.We discuss zoning.Someone complains about a licensing requirement.We discuss licensing.Someone complains about a tax regulation.We discuss taxation.Someone complains about a building code.We discuss building codes.We divide the web back into individual strands and then ask whether each strand can be justified.But there is another question.What is the cumulative effect of all the strands together?That question matters because freedom is not experienced one regulation at a time.Neither is government.You experience the cumulative boundaries placed around your choices.And something subtle can happen when enough boundaries accumulate.The citizen begins asking:“Am I allowed to do this?”Think about that question.Not:“Does government possess lawful authority to prohibit this?”But:“Am I allowed?”That is a profound change in the relationship between the citizen and government.Because the traditional premise of American liberty is not that government grants us every freedom we possess.Government possesses enumerated or otherwise constitutionally recognized powers, depending upon the level of government, and those powers have boundaries.Yet Regulatory Saturation can psychologically reverse that relationship.When regulations surround virtually every activity, government begins to appear unlimited and liberty begins to appear exceptional.You may build this — if permitted.Operate this business — if licensed.Use your property this way — if approved.Place this structure here — if authorized.And after generations of living inside that system, we stop noticing the premise underneath it.We simply ask:“What do I need to do to get permission?”That does not mean permits are inherently unlawful.It does not mean zoning is inherently unconstitutional.It does not mean government cannot regulate conduct.Those would be conclusions.And the Liberty Dialogues teaches us not to begin with conclusions.We begin with questions.So here is the question Regulatory Saturation forces us to confront:At what point does the accumulation of individually justified restrictions fundamentally change the relationship between government and the governed?That is the question almost nobody asks.And there is another.When an official approaches you and says:“You are violating Section 12-47.”What happens next?Most people immediately argue Section 12-47.But the Liberty Dialogues approach begins earlier.What authority permitted Section 12-47 to exist?Who enacted it?What power was delegated?What are the jurisdictional limits of that power?What facts trigger its application?What status brings this person or property within its reach?What procedural protections are required?And have those things actually been demonstrated?Again:The existence of the rule is not the end of the inquiry.It is the beginning.That distinction becomes increasingly important as ...
    Show More Show Less
    7 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.