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
  • Selling apples and lemonade.

    Selling apples and lemonade.
    Jul 21 2026
    The Constitutional Sheriff: The Difference Between Enforcing Rules and Defending LibertyYesterday I asked a simple question.What is the job of the sheriff?Not what the state tells him.Not what the academy teaches him.Not what has become normal.What is the actual constitutional purpose of the office?Most people immediately answer:“To enforce the law.”But that answer is incomplete.The constitutional sheriff is not merely an enforcer.He is the constitutional guardian standing between the people and government itself.His oath is not to protect regulations.His oath is not to protect bureaucracy.His oath is not to protect revenue.His oath is to support and defend the Constitution.And that changes everything.Let me give you two examples.Imagine a widow living out in the country.She has a small apple tree in her backyard.Every autumn she gathers the apples, places five of them into little paper bags, sets up an old folding table beside the road, tapes a piece of cardboard to the front that says:“Five Apples – $2.”She’s not a corporation.She’s not running a supermarket.She’s not poisoning anyone.She’s simply selling apples she grew on her own property.Along comes the city.An inspector tells her she needs a permit to place the table beside the road.Another official tells her she needs a business license.Then the health department arrives.Now she’s being fined because she hasn’t complied with food regulations.Ask yourself something.What has she actually done wrong?Whose life has she harmed?Whose liberty has she violated?Whose property has she damaged?If the answer is no one, then what exactly is government protecting?Or is it protecting the administrative process itself?Now let’s change the story.Two little children.Eight and ten years old.Summer vacation.They build a tiny lemonade stand from scrap wood and cardboard.A handwritten sign says:“Lemonade – 25¢.”They’re learning responsibility.They’re learning work.They’re learning customer service.They’re learning confidence.Then a city official walks up.“Where’s your permit?”The children don’t know what a permit is.“Where’s your food service approval?”They’ve never heard of it.“You’re violating city ordinance.”The stand is shut down.The lemonade is dumped out.The children go home crying.Now ask yourself another question.What lesson did those children just learn?Did they learn entrepreneurship?Or did they learn that government permission comes before personal initiative?That is a tragic lesson.Now let’s introduce the constitutional sheriff.The sheriff arrives—not to take sides emotionally, but to ask the questions that matter.To the city officials he asks:“What actual constitutional right of another person has been violated?”“What immediate injury has occurred?”“What constitutional authority justifies depriving this peaceful woman of the ability to sell apples she grew herself?”“What constitutional authority justifies shutting down two children selling lemonade?”Those are not political questions.Those are constitutional questions.And they deserve constitutional answers.If no injury exists...If no person’s life, liberty, or property has been harmed...Then the sheriff must ask whether the exercise of governmental power has exceeded its proper constitutional limits.That is what discernment looks like.Notice something.The sheriff isn’t refusing to listen.He isn’t refusing to investigate.He isn’t refusing to uphold legitimate law.He’s doing something much more important.He’s distinguishing between protecting the public......and simply protecting administrative procedure.Those are not always the same thing.This is where many sheriffs fail.Not because they’re bad people.Because they were trained to begin with the regulation......instead of beginning with liberty.The constitutional sheriff begins somewhere else.He begins with the citizen.He begins with the question:“What liberty is government about to deprive?”Only then does he ask:“Is that deprivation constitutionally justified?”That is the order.Not the other way around.If sheriffs throughout America began asking those questions consistently, thousands of unnecessary conflicts would disappear overnight.Because government would once again be required to justify its exercise of power instead of merely assuming it.That is the difference between administration and constitutional government.Administration begins with compliance.The Constitution begins with liberty.Administration asks:“Did you get permission?”The Constitution asks:“By what authority are you taking away a peaceful person’s freedom?”Those are two entirely different systems of thought.The sheriff who understands that distinction becomes something far greater than a law enforcement officer.He becomes the last constitutional checkpoint before government crosses the line.And if he no longer understands that responsibility......who is left to defend the ...
    Show More Show Less
    8 mins
  • Special Access

    Special Access
    Jul 20 2026



    Get full access to YesToHellWith at yestohellwith.substack.com/subscribe
    Show More Show Less
    5 mins
  • The art of the conversation...

    The art of the conversation...
    Jul 20 2026
    I think one of the greatest obstacles to restoring freedom has nothing to do with government.It has to do with us.More specifically...It has to do with our inability to have a disciplined conversation.Most people believe they’re having a discussion.They’re not.They’re waiting for an opportunity to say what they already believe.They aren’t listening to understand.They’re listening for an opening.An opening to introduce their own theory.Their own philosophy.Their own conclusion.That isn’t a conversation.That’s two monologues taking turns.A real conversation has a very different purpose.Its purpose is to isolate the issue requiring resolution.Once that issue has been identified, every question...Every comment...Every piece of evidence...Should move the discussion toward resolving that issue.If it doesn’t...It belongs in another conversation.That sounds simple.But it’s astonishing how rarely it happens.I experienced a perfect example just the other day.I posted a hypothetical situation.A father and his sixteen-year-old son were peacefully fishing in a river.A game warden approached them and issued citations.I then asked one question.What should a constitutional sheriff do?That was the conversation.Nothing more.Nothing less.One gentleman responded with a lengthy explanation about maritime law.He explained admiralty jurisdiction.He explained commerce.He explained navigable waters.He explained why, in his opinion, every lake, river, stream, pond, and body of water in America falls under maritime law.Whether his conclusions were right or wrong is completely beside the point.He never answered the question.He answered a different question.The moment he changed the subject...The conversation ended.That happens every day.Someone raises a constitutional question.Someone else introduces the Uniform Commercial Code.Another person brings up corporations.Another talks about strawmen.Another talks about the Fourteenth Amendment.Another discusses admiralty.Each person may sincerely believe they’re contributing.But they aren’t building upon the conversation.They’re replacing it.And once the original issue is replaced...The possibility of solving it disappears.That is one of the greatest weaknesses I see throughout the freedom movement.People are constantly introducing new conversations before the original one has reached a conclusion.As a result...Very little is ever resolved.Now let me be clear.I’m not suggesting those other subjects have no value.Some of them deserve careful examination.But they deserve their own conversation.Not this one.If we’re discussing the constitutional responsibility of a sheriff...Then let’s discuss the constitutional responsibility of a sheriff.If we’re discussing the limits of governmental authority...Let’s stay there.If we’re discussing natural rights...Let’s stay there until we’ve reached a conclusion.Only then do we move to the next issue.That is how serious people solve serious problems.Not by constantly changing subjects.But by remaining disciplined enough to stay with the issue until a practical remedy has been identified.That’s exactly why I continue returning to the office of the county sheriff.Not because every issue involves the sheriff.But because if we’re serious about restoring constitutional government, then we should isolate the constitutional officer who already possesses both the authority and the responsibility to prevent government from exceeding its constitutional limits.Once we isolate that issue...The conversation becomes remarkably focused.How should a constitutional sheriff fulfill the oath he has already taken?How should he protect the rights and freedoms of peaceful citizens?How should he respond when government exceeds its constitutional authority?Those questions lead somewhere.Those questions can produce practical answers.If we have sheriffs who understand the Constitution...Who understand the limits placed upon government...Who possess the wisdom to distinguish peaceful liberty from unlawful conduct...And who possess the courage to act...Then we’ve identified the beginning of a practical remedy.Everything else becomes secondary.Not because it lacks importance.But because it no longer distracts us from the objective.The objective is not to win an argument.It isn’t to impress people with how much we know.It isn’t to accumulate another theory.The objective is to identify a problem...Remain focused upon it...And pursue it until we’ve found a solution.Imagine what would happen if more Americans learned that discipline.Our conversations would become shorter.Clearer.More productive.We would spend less time talking past one another...And more time solving the problems that actually confront us.Perhaps that’s one of the greatest lessons we can learn.Not simply how to speak...But how to remain focused on the question before us until we’ve earned the right to move on.Because the restoration of freedom won’t come from ...
    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.