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
  • Eric, Do you seek and demand control?

    Eric, Do you seek and demand control?
    Sep 5 2026
    At What Point Does Protection Become Control? How is one able to be responsible of he is not able to judge and choose?It would be shortsighted to demand that every person do everything in exactly the same way, under every circumstance, simply because a rule says so.Blind obedience does not create responsibility.It does not create judgment.It does not create maturity.And it certainly does not create life.A responsible person understands circumstances, consequences, necessity, and the effect of his actions on others. A society that demands mechanical obedience to every command risks replacing personal responsibility with conditioned compliance.Imagine a ten-year-old boy watching his mother collapse from a heart attack.There is nobody else around.He knows where the hospital is. He grabs the keys, puts his mother in the car, and drives.He doesn’t have a license. Of course he doesn’t. He’s ten.He reaches a red light. There is no traffic. He drives through it.He reaches a stop sign. He doesn’t stop.He is breaking the rules.Now imagine a police officer sees him and pulls him over.But the boy isn’t joyriding.His mother is dying.The officer follows procedure. The boy is removed from the driver’s seat. An ambulance is called. Precious minutes are lost.And his mother dies.Now ask yourself:What was the purpose of the law?Was the driver’s-license requirement created to prevent a child from saving his mother’s life?Was that red light created so that an empty intersection would become more important than a dying woman?Of course not.Those laws exist because driving creates risks to other people.But something happens when we stop examining why a rule exists and begin treating obedience to the rule as the objective itself.The rule becomes the end.Now consider an elderly man living in the same house he has occupied for fifty years.The paint is peeling. The roof needs repair. The yard is overgrown. Parts of the house aren’t up to today’s code.He doesn’t have the money to fix everything.But the house is paid for.It’s his home.He knows every room. His children grew up there. His wife lived there. Maybe she died there.And he wants to remain there.The city sees something different.Violations.Repair this.Replace that.Bring this up to code.Then come fines. Contractors. Liens.Eventually the government may correct the conditions and demand reimbursement.The owner cannot pay.He is forced to sell the home he spent his life acquiring.The government can say:We’re protecting him.But the man who had an imperfect home now has no home.So ask the question:At what point did protection become destruction?This isn’t an argument for abolishing building codes.It isn’t an argument for children routinely driving automobiles.And it isn’t an argument for removing stop signs.It is an argument for something much more fundamental:Judgment.A stop sign serves a purpose.It tells motorists to stop because an intersection presents a potential danger.Now imagine a driver approaches that stop sign at one mile per hour.He looks left.Nobody.He looks right.Nobody.He rolls through at walking speed.A police officer sees him.Lights come on.Ticket.Technically, the driver violated the rule.But what exactly has government accomplished?Was someone injured?Was someone endangered?Was property damaged?Was another person’s liberty invaded?If the conduct created an actual danger, address the danger.But if it didn’t, we should at least be willing to ask:What governmental objective is being served by punishment?Because there is a profound difference between maintaining order and demanding obedience for obedience’s sake.And that brings us directly to the Liberty Dialogues.The Liberty Dialogues do not say there should be no government.They do not say every regulation is illegitimate.They ask:What is the purpose of government power, and where does that power end?LD asks:Under what authority, through what process, and subject to what limits?Those questions do not create anarchy.They distinguish government under law from government by command.And yes, freedom carries responsibility.Freedom does not mean I can burn my house and allow the fire to consume yours.It doesn’t mean I can drive recklessly through an intersection and endanger your children.My property rights don’t permit me to poison your water or destroy your property.But responsibility works both ways.Government possesses the power to command, prohibit, fine, seize, condemn, license, inspect, and punish.Therefore, government has the responsibility to justify the exercise of those powers.Not simply:“Because that’s the rule.”Not:“Because that’s our policy.”Not:“Because everyone has to comply.”Those statements demand obedience.They do not establish justice.A free society must leave room for circumstance.For necessity.For proportionality.For discretion.For due process.And for the possibility that a human being can technically violate a rule without doing something ...
    Show More Show Less
    9 mins
  • Innocent Clerk?

    Innocent Clerk?
    Sep 5 2026

    WHO ACTUALLY MADE THE DECISION?

    In the last video, the clerk told us:

    “I don’t make the rules.”

    Fair enough.

    So let’s find the person who does.

    You ask for the supervisor.

    The supervisor says:

    “My employees are required to follow department policy.”

    Who established the policy?

    “Well, that’s based on the county ordinance.”

    Fine.

    Who is responsible for the ordinance?

    “The Board adopted it.”

    You contact the Board.

    The Board tells you:

    “Enforcement decisions are handled by staff.”

    And suddenly we’re back where we started.

    The clerk points upward.

    The supervisor points to policy.

    The department points to the ordinance.

    The elected officials point back to the department.

    Everyone participated.

    Nobody is responsible.

    That is a serious structural problem in government.

    Because power has been exercised against an individual, yet responsibility for that exercise of power has disappeared into the organization.

    So let’s ask a different question.

    Who made the actual decision?

    Not who typed the letter.

    Not who handed over the form.

    Not who entered the information into the computer.

    Who determined that government possessed the authority to require this particular person to do this particular thing?

    There should be an answer.

    If an ordinance created the requirement, identify the ordinance.

    If a statute authorized the ordinance, identify the statute.

    If an administrative official made a discretionary decision, identify that official.

    If an attorney advised the department that the action was lawful, identify the legal basis for that conclusion.

    But government should not be permitted to exercise power through a chain in which every participant can disclaim responsibility simply by pointing to somebody else.

    And elected officials should pay particular attention to this.

    Delegating administration does not mean abandoning oversight.

    If the people elect you to supervise their government, “staff handles that” cannot always be the end of the conversation.

    Sometimes the complaint is precisely about what staff is doing.

    That means somebody with actual authority must be willing to examine the decision.

    And this is where responsibility begins to become identifiable.

    Ask:

    Who ordered the action?

    Who authorized it?

    Who reviewed it?

    Who has the power to stop it?

    And perhaps most importantly:

    Who will put his or her name behind it?

    That last question changes things.

    It is easy to say:

    “County policy requires it.”

    It is different to say:

    “I am the official responsible for this decision, and this is the authority upon which I am relying.”

    Now we have something tangible.

    A decision.

    A decision-maker.

    An asserted authority.

    And a record.

    That is accountability.

    Government cannot be allowed to become a machine in which power comes out one end while responsibility disappears inside it.

    If government acts against you, you should be able to identify the human being responsible for that decision and the authority upon which that person acted.

    So the next time someone tells you:

    “That’s our policy,”

    don’t argue with the policy.

    Ask the more important question:

    Who has the authority to require it?

    Because that takes us to the next problem.

    Policy may tell a government employee what to do.

    But does policy, standing alone, create lawful authority over you?



    Get full access to YesToHellWith at yestohellwith.substack.com/subscribe
    Show More Show Less
    4 mins
  • Liberty Dialogues...

    Liberty Dialogues...
    Sep 4 2026

    Download The Liberty Dialogues for free at www.thelibertydialogues.com



    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.