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
  • Confusing the Meaning of Precedent

    Confusing the Meaning of Precedent
    Jun 18 2026
    “No state shall convert a liberty into a license and charge a fee therefor.”— Commonly attributed to Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943)“If the state converts a right into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right with impunity.”— Commonly attributed to Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, 373 U.S. 262 (1963)If you have spent any time studying liberty, constitutional law, government authority, the right to travel, licensing, permits, or individual rights, there is a good chance you have encountered one or both of these statements.They appear in books.They appear in videos.They appear on websites.They appear in social media posts.And they are often presented as though they settle every question involving government authority.Many people read them.Many people repeat them.Many people rely upon them.But very few people stop to ask the most important question:What did the court actually decide?Because a court case is not a quote.A court case is a dispute.It involves facts.It involves evidence.It involves legal questions.It involves competing arguments.And ultimately, it involves a holding that applies to a particular set of circumstances.Yet many people never read beyond the quote itself.Consider Murdock v. Pennsylvania.People hear the statement:“No state shall convert a liberty into a license and charge a fee therefor.”They immediately conclude that every license is unlawful.Every permit is unlawful.Every fee is unlawful.Every government requirement must therefore be invalid.But Murdock was not a case about every license.It was not a case about every permit.It was not a case about every interaction between citizen and government.The Court was addressing a specific ordinance imposed upon Jehovah’s Witnesses engaged in religious evangelism and the distribution of religious literature.The facts mattered.The issue mattered.The constitutional question mattered.The holding mattered.Now consider Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham.People hear:“If the state converts a right into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right with impunity.”Many immediately assume the matter is settled.Case closed.Nothing more to learn.Nothing more to understand.Yet Shuttlesworth involved a specific parade permit ordinance.It involved specific facts.It involved prior restraint.It involved First Amendment issues.It involved the scope of governmental discretion.Again, the facts mattered.The issue mattered.The holding mattered.And this is where many people make a critical mistake.They begin with the quote.They stop with the quote.And they never study the case.The danger is not merely that a quote may be inaccurate.The danger is that a quote may be accepted as complete.The danger is believing that one sentence can substitute for understanding.Imagine reading a single sentence from a contract and believing you understand the entire agreement.Imagine reading one paragraph from a statute and believing you understand the entire law.Imagine hearing one witness in a trial and believing you know the whole story.You would never do that.Yet people do it every day with court opinions.The real value of a case is not found in a memorable sentence.The real value is found in understanding:What were the facts?What question was before the court?What authority was being exercised?What constitutional issue existed?What reasoning did the court employ?What exactly was the holding?And how does that holding apply—or not apply—to your circumstances?A person who relies on quotations alone becomes vulnerable.A person who understands the case becomes dangerous.Because understanding allows you to distinguish between appearance and reality.Between slogans and substance.Between assumptions and proof.Between rhetoric and law.The proper question is not:“What quote supports my position?”The proper question is:“What did the court actually decide, why did it decide it, and how does that decision apply to my facts?”Because liberty is not protected by slogans.Liberty is not protected by memes.Liberty is not protected by isolated quotations.Liberty is protected by understanding.And as always, may truth reign supreme. Get full access to YesToHellWith at yestohellwith.substack.com/subscribe
    Show More Show Less
    5 mins
  • The Liberty Dialogues System

    The Liberty Dialogues System
    Jun 18 2026

    Have you ever wondered why some people make progress in legal battles while others remain trapped in confusion?

    The answer is not money.

    It’s not connections.

    And it’s not even having an attorney.

    It’s having a system.

    Tonight at 7:00 PM Eastern Time, join a live Liberty Dialogues conference call and discover how people are using the Liberty Dialogues framework to analyze complex legal problems, challenge assumptions, and build effective strategies.

    This is not merely about AI.

    It’s about learning a system that helps you think clearly when everything seems stacked against you.

    If you would like special access, send an email to info@yestohellwith.com.

    Learn the system.

    Change the way you see every legal problem.

    And as always, may truth reign supreme.



    Get full access to YesToHellWith at yestohellwith.substack.com/subscribe
    Show More Show Less
    1 min
  • What would the Colonists do today?

    What would the Colonists do today?
    Jun 17 2026

    Are Americans today actually freer than the colonists who stood against King George III?

    Most people assume the answer is obvious.

    Of course we’re freer.

    After all, we have elections.

    We have courts.

    We have constitutions.

    We have representatives.

    But what if freedom is not measured by appearances?

    What if freedom is measured by how much control government exercises over your life?

    Think about the colonists.

    The colonists were angry over taxes.

    They were angry over regulations.

    They were angry over searches and seizures.

    They were angry over distant government making decisions without meaningful consent.

    Those grievances fueled a revolution.

    Now ask yourself a simple question:

    How many laws governed the average colonist?

    A few hundred?

    Perhaps a few thousand?

    Now compare that to modern America.

    Today, Americans live under an almost unimaginable web of federal statutes, state statutes, regulations, codes, ordinances, administrative rules, licensing requirements, permits, reporting requirements, and compliance obligations.

    Most citizens cannot possibly know them all.

    In fact, most lawyers cannot possibly know them all.

    The colonists at least knew when government was acting against them.

    Today, government power is often hidden inside agencies, departments, boards, commissions, and administrative systems that most people never see and never understand.

    King George did not monitor every financial transaction.

    King George did not track every citizen through a federal identification system.

    King George did not maintain massive databases on the daily lives of his subjects.

    King George did not regulate nearly every industry, profession, property use, financial activity, educational system, transportation system, and business transaction.

    Whether one believes those controls are justified or not is beside the point.

    The point is that the scope of government power today is vastly greater than anything the colonists experienced.

    But perhaps the greatest difference is not force.

    It is presumption.

    The colonists knew they were being governed.

    Americans today often live under layers of assumptions they never examine.

    Government presumes authority.

    Government presumes jurisdiction.

    Government presumes applicability.

    Government presumes obligation.

    Government presumes compliance.

    And most people never ask the questions that would test those presumptions.

    What authority?

    What jurisdiction?

    What status?

    What obligation?

    What proof?

    The Founders believed government existed to secure liberty.

    Today many Americans feel that government exists to manage behavior.

    The Founders believed rights were inherent.

    Today many people experience rights as permissions that can be regulated, conditioned, licensed, restricted, suspended, or revoked.

    Again, whether one agrees or disagrees with that observation is not the issue.

    The issue is whether Americans are willing to ask the question.

    Have we moved closer to the vision of a free republic?

    Or farther away?

    The purpose of this discussion is not to condemn America.

    The purpose is to challenge Americans to think.

    To question.

    To investigate.

    To learn.

    To understand the difference between freedom and administration.

    Between consent and presumption.

    Between rights and privileges.

    The American Revolution was not merely a rejection of a king.

    It was a declaration that government must remain the servant of the people, never their master.

    That question remains just as important today as it was in 1776.

    If you believe these questions deserve serious examination, visit tothepresidentoftheunitedstates.com.

    Read the Declaration.

    Examine the arguments.

    Study the evidence.

    Decide for yourself.

    And as always, may truth reign supreme.



    Get full access to YesToHellWith at yestohellwith.substack.com/subscribe
    Show More Show Less
    5 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.