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
  • Questions and Answers

    Questions and Answers
    Jul 25 2026



    Get full access to YesToHellWith at yestohellwith.substack.com/subscribe
    Show More Show Less
    8 mins
  • The EPA, an American, and excessive power!

    The EPA, an American, and excessive power!
    Jul 25 2026
    If you or someone you love has been affected by breast cancer, know that you’re not alone. Together, let’s continue to encourage hope, early detection, research, and support for every family facing this fight.The Sheriff, the Rancher, and the Stock PondIn 2012, Wyoming rancher Andy Johnson did what ranchers have done for generations. He obtained a permit from the Wyoming State Engineer and built a small stock pond on his ranch near Fort Bridger. The pond was intended to water his cattle and improve wildlife habitat.Several months later, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers began investigating the project. Then, in January of 2014, the Environmental Protection Agency issued a Compliance Order alleging that Johnson had violated the Clean Water Act by constructing the pond without first obtaining a federal permit.The EPA ordered him to restore the property and threatened civil penalties that could eventually total millions of dollars if he failed to comply.Think about that for a moment.A rancher obtains permission from his own state.He builds a stock pond to water his livestock.Then the federal government arrives and tells him that the state’s approval isn’t enough.Ultimately, Andy Johnson challenged the EPA in federal court, and in 2016 the case settled. He kept his pond, paid no fines, and admitted no wrongdoing.There is another part of this story that is worth considering.Wyoming’s governor at the time was Governor Matt Mead.To his credit, Governor Mead publicly stated that Andy Johnson had properly obtained his Wyoming permit and described the EPA’s actions as heavy-handed. In other words, the Governor publicly acknowledged that one of Wyoming’s citizens had acted in reliance upon a permit lawfully issued by the State and questioned the federal government’s response.I believe Governor Mead was right to say so.But notice what did not happen.There is no indication that the Governor became involved at the beginning of the dispute, before years of litigation followed. There is no indication that the sheriff and the Governor coordinated their efforts to defend both the citizen and the authority of the State before Andy Johnson was forced into federal court.Now I’d like to ask a different question.What if the sheriff had become involved long before the lawyers?Not to interfere with the courts.Not to threaten federal officials.Not to pretend he could simply overrule Washington.But to fulfill the constitutional purpose of his own office.Imagine Andy Johnson walking into the sheriff’s office.“Sheriff, I obtained the permits required by my state. I built a stock pond to water my cattle. Now the federal government says I’ve violated the law and they’re threatening to destroy my livelihood.”What should the sheriff do?Should he simply shrug his shoulders and say,“That’s between you and the federal government.”Or does his oath require something more?A constitutional sheriff begins by investigating the facts.He visits the ranch.He examines the pond.He confirms that the pond was built for livestock.He confirms that the State of Wyoming issued a permit.He determines whether anyone has actually suffered an injury.Has neighboring property been damaged?No.Has anyone alleged pollution?No.Has anyone claimed that livestock or people have been harmed?No.Has anyone reported an actual victim?No.Now the sheriff asks a different question.If there is no injured party, no damaged property, no allegation of fraud, and no threat to public safety, why is governmental force being directed against this citizen?Notice the difference.The sheriff is not deciding who ultimately wins.He is not deciding federal jurisdiction.He is asking whether government has adequately explained the authority it claims before imposing enormous burdens on a peaceful citizen.The sheriff also recognizes something else.This is no longer simply a dispute between one citizen and one federal agency.The State of Wyoming issued the permit upon which this citizen relied.That means the authority of the State has also been called into question.So before contacting the federal officials, the sheriff first contacts the Governor.“Governor, I have completed my investigation.One of our citizens obtained a permit issued by the State of Wyoming and relied upon it in good faith.The federal government now claims that the authorization issued by this State is insufficient and is threatening extraordinary penalties against one of our citizens.As sheriff, I intend to continue protecting the rights of this citizen.I ask that you determine whether the State intends to defend the validity of its own permitting authority.”Now the Governor has an opportunity to act.He may conclude that the State should defend its own authorization.He may direct the Attorney General to review the matter.He may communicate directly with the federal government.Or he may decline to act.Whatever his decision, the sheriff has fulfilled his responsibility by ensuring that the...
    Show More Show Less
    10 mins
  • Free to pay and Fund the Government!

    Free to pay and Fund the Government!
    Jul 24 2026
    The Conversation Is Not About FreedomHave you ever stopped to ask yourself a simple question?When a police officer pulls someone over, what is the real objective?Most people answer, “Public safety.”And public safety is certainly a legitimate function of government.But what if, in some places, that is no longer the entire conversation?What if the discussion quietly shifts from protecting the public... to producing revenue?That isn’t speculation.The United States Department of Justice investigated the Ferguson, Missouri Police Department and concluded that the city’s approach to law enforcement had become unduly focused on revenue generation.Think about that for a moment.The Department of Justice wasn’t criticizing one officer. It found that the institution itself had become financially dependent upon fines and fees. Internal communications discussed increasing ticket writing to increase municipal revenue.That should concern every American.Nor was Ferguson the only example.In Fairfax County, Virginia, an internal memorandum reportedly established daily expectations for summonses before it was withdrawn.In Falls Church, Virginia, officers reportedly faced numerical expectations tied to tickets and arrests.Los Angeles officers alleged they were pressured to produce traffic citations.Richardson, Texas, evaluated officer productivity using citation activity.Whittier, California, officers sued, alleging quota systems.In Pearl River, Louisiana, internal emails reportedly instructed officers that the day’s goal was four enforcement actions.Whether every allegation in every locality was ultimately proven is not the point.The point is that these examples demonstrate something much deeper.Government institutions can develop financial incentives that gradually shift their focus away from protecting liberty and toward sustaining the institution itself.Now let’s ask a harder question.Why does government continually need more revenue?Because government continually grows.Every election cycle, people ask government to solve another problem.Create another department.Hire more employees.Pass another regulation.Fund another program.Expand another agency.Provide another service.Every one of those demands requires money.And here is the uncomfortable truth.The people themselves often create the pressure that leads government to seek additional revenue.No politician campaigns by saying,“I’m going to increase ticket revenue.”No police chief stands before the public and announces,“We need more citations to support the budget.”That isn’t how it works.Government expands.Budgets increase.Financial obligations grow.And somewhere, somehow, the money must be found.Sometimes through taxes.Sometimes through permits.Sometimes through licensing fees.Sometimes through administrative penalties.Sometimes through court costs.And sometimes through enforcement.Do you see what has happened?The conversation is no longer centered on freedom.It becomes centered on sustaining the machinery of government.That is a completely different objective.Under the Liberty Dialogues, government exists for one fundamental purpose: to secure the rights and freedoms of the people.Revenue is necessary for government to function.But revenue is not the purpose of government.The moment government begins viewing enforcement as a significant source of income, the relationship between government and the people begins to change.The citizen is no longer seen first as someone whose liberty must be protected.He becomes someone from whom revenue may be collected.That doesn’t mean every officer is acting improperly.It doesn’t mean every department operates this way.But incentives matter.Every institution responds to the incentives placed before it.If success is measured by dollars collected...If budgets begin depending upon fines...If enforcement contributes to financial stability...Then human nature tells us that those incentives will influence behavior.Not because everyone is dishonest.But because institutions naturally adapt to the pressures placed upon them.So perhaps the next time someone says,“It’s only a ticket,”the better question is this:What is the true purpose being served?Is it genuinely about protecting the public?Or has enforcement, in some places, become one more mechanism for financing an ever-expanding government?That is the conversation we should be having.Because if the people continue demanding a larger and larger government without asking how it will be funded, they should not be surprised when that government increasingly looks to the people themselves as a dependable source of revenue.And when that happens, the conversation is no longer primarily about freedom.It is about sustaining government.Those are not the same thing.May truth reign supreme. Get full access to YesToHellWith at yestohellwith.substack.com/subscribe
    Show More Show Less
    6 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.