『YesToHellWith』のカバーアート

YesToHellWith

YesToHellWith

著者： and may TRUTH reign supreme!
無料で聴く

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 政治・政府 政治学 毎時
エピソード
  • Eternal Vigilance!

    Eternal Vigilance!
    2026/07/15

    Jen, I decided to offer a narrow response to your concerning the Constitution under a given theory.

    Suppose someone believes that government operates differently than the people have always understood. Suppose someone claims that the structure of government has fundamentally changed from what Americans have traditionally expected. That belief does not make it so. Correct?

    Do you still expect a republican form of government?

    Moreover, if government claims that it operates under some different authority or some different structure than the people reasonably understand, then government bears the responsibility of explaining that change openly, honestly, and completely. Has this happened? No.

    So the theory or notion of any change in government makes no difference.

    The American people have every reason to expect that government will honor the constitutional principles under which it claims to govern. We expect public officials to remain within the limits of the authority entrusted to them. And we expect every constitutional officer—especially the county sheriff—to honor his oath.

    The people should not be expected to discover such a change by accident or through a theory offered by a guru.

    They should never be expected to infer it through implication.

    And they should never be expected to surrender their constitutional expectations without being fully informed.

    A free people are entitled to know the nature and source of the authority that governs them.

    They are entitled to understand it.

    They are entitled to question it.

    The people have every reason to continue expecting a constitutional form of government they have always been taught to believe exists.

    That expectation does not disappear because someone makes a different claim.

    Nor does it relieve a sheriff of the duty to preserve the rights of the people and to ensure that governmental power remains within its proper constitutional limits.

    The sheriff’s oath is not to speculation.

    It is not to assumptions.

    It is not to hidden understandings known only to a few.

    His oath is to the constitutional order he has sworn to uphold and to the people whose liberty depends upon it.

    If government wishes to claim something different, then let government explain it openly.

    Allow me to emphasize a key point one more time. The people have every right to expect the constitutional protections, and every right to expect their sheriff to stand with them in preserving those principles.

    May truth reign supreme.



    Get full access to YesToHellWith at yestohellwith.substack.com/subscribe
    続きを読む 一部表示
    3 分
  • If the US is a corporation...

    If the US is a corporation...
    2026/07/15
    Yesterday Jen said that the US is a corporation and asked if that did not make the Constitution void?That question involves an answer that may not be expected.For decades, some Americans have been searching for answers about government, freedom, and the law. Along the way, they’ve encountered a stream of gurus, experts, and self-proclaimed authorities, each promising to possess the one secret that everyone else has missed.You’ve probably heard many of the theories.Admiralty jurisdiction.Maritime law.Uniform Commercial Code.Acceptance for Value.Offset discharge.The strawman.The all-capital-letter name.The United States as a corporation.And dozens more.Some of these ideas are based on real historical facts.Some are built upon legal concepts that exist but are expanded far beyond how courts interpret them.Some are theories that courts have repeatedly rejected.The problem isn’t simply that these ideas exist.The problem is what often happens next.Someone takes a single observation—sometimes a true observation—and transforms it into a universal solution.That’s where people get hurt.One of the greatest mistakes we make is confusing an observation with a remedy.An observation may be true.The proposed solution may still be completely wrong.That distinction has cost countless Americans years of their lives.I’ve seen the pain caused by these theories and the loss of time, money and hope.I’ve lived enough of that journey myself to understand how attractive certainty can become when your freedom, your livelihood, or your family is on the line.So let’s go back to Jen’s question.Suppose someone believes the United States operates as a corporation.What changes tomorrow morning in your county?Does that automatically determine how your sheriff performs his duties?Does it tell your county commissioners how they should exercise their authority?Does it answer whether a public official has acted within the limits of the authority granted to that office?Not by itself.Whether one accepts or rejects that theory, the practical question remains exactly the same:What authority exists?What are its limits?Who must prove those limits have been respected?Those questions matter every single day.Candidly, especially when emotions are involved, the more complicated government appears, the more valuable the person becomes who claims to possess the secret answer.Complexity creates gurus.Mystery creates followers.But free people should never have to depend upon secret knowledge.Liberty should not require decoding hidden symbols, discovering invisible trusts, or mastering theories that only a handful of people claim to understand.A constitutional republic, at its best, depends upon something much simpler.Citizens who understand that government is limited.Public officials who understand the limits of the offices they hold.Sheriffs, commissioners, legislators, judges, and every other public servant who recognize that public power is not unlimited and that it must remain accountable to law.Instead of chasing theories or trusting a flawed approach, isn’t it better to ask disciplined questions?What authority is being claimed?Where does that authority come from?What is the source of the obligation?Has jurisdiction actually been established?Who bears the burden of proving it?Those questions don’t depend upon personalities.They don’t depend upon gurus.They don’t depend upon internet movements.They depend upon careful reasoning.That’s why I created the Liberty Dialogues.Not to give people another theory.Not to replace one guru with another.But to give ordinary people a structured way to think.A way to analyze claims instead of simply accepting them.A way to distinguish evidence from assumption.A way to separate historical fact from speculation.A way to understand authority before arguing about power.Jen, your question was an important one.But perhaps the better question is this:If your sheriff honored the Constitution and his oath, would you ever need to concern yourself with some unfounded and errant theory that has no bearing upon your life and community?If your freedom depends upon persuading a court to adopt a theory it has never accepted, have you really found a practical remedy?Or is the better path to understand the principles that define and limit governmental authority, insist that public officials remain within those limits, and hold them accountable when they do not?Free people cannot build a free society upon speculation.They build it upon truth.They build it upon principle.They build it by understanding the proper limits of government and expecting every public official—from the sheriff to the highest office in the land—to honor those limits.When Americans stop chasing theories and start asking better questions, the conversation changes.And that’s where liberty begins.May truth reign supreme. Get full access to YesToHellWith at yestohellwith.substack.com/subscribe
    続きを読む 一部表示
    7 分
  • Of what value are titles?

    Of what value are titles?
    2026/07/14
    What Is My Title?It’s July 14, 2026. Welcome to yestohellwith.com.The other day, I received a message from a new follower named Jen.She asked me a simple question.“ What is your professional and educational background? Most people do not know any of this information.It’s a fair question.Because we live in a society that teaches us to trust titles before we examine truth.Doctor.Attorney.Judge.Professor.Expert.We hear a title, and almost instantly, we give that person credibility.But have you ever noticed that we rarely ask the next question?Has the doctor ever amputated the wrong leg?Has the attorney ever been sanctioned for misconduct?Has the judge ever ignored the evidence?Has the professor spent years teaching something that simply wasn’t true?Titles identify positions.They do not prove wisdom.They do not prove integrity.And they certainly do not prove truth.I know someone very close to me who serves as a judge.When people ask what she does, she says,“I work for the government.”She doesn’t want the title to define who she is.I understand that.Because titles often cause people to stop thinking.They hear the title...and they surrender their own judgment.Now let me tell you something else.I don’t like social media.I’ve never been interested in it.I didn’t know how to use it.When I created the Liberty Dialogues System, my publisher insisted that I create business pages so people could discover the books and the videos.So I did.The Facebook page for Yes to Hell With grew from zero to more than one hundred thousand followers in a surprisingly short time.Then something happened.I publicly accused a former United States Attorney, Benjamin Glassman, of lying in connection with a man I know to be innocent.That wasn’t an emotional accusation.It was based on documents.Records.Evidence.Facebook suspended the page.Interestingly, no other social media platform did.That experience brings us back to Jen’s question.What qualifies anyone to speak?Benjamin Glassman was a US Attorney, but he lied about the shredding of evidence in a case and he was never investigated.Now, the government has already given me a title for tax crimes I did not commit.Convicted felon.That is the label they want you to remember.Not researcher.Not writer.Not teacher.Not student of constitutional government.Not someone who spent decades studying authority, jurisdiction, presumption, and the legal system.Just...Convicted felon.Why?Because labels influence people.A label can stop curiosity.A label can replace investigation with fear.A label can cause people to dismiss someone before they’ve ever examined the evidence.Here’s my story.I endured an eight-year federal investigation.Much of it was criminal.I went through a federal tax trial.I was convicted of willful failure to file federal income tax returns.I maintain that I was unjustly convicted.I spent more than four years in federal prison.That experience cost me almost everything.Time.Property.Relationships.My reputation.Years of my life that I will never recover.But prison also gave me something the government never intended to give me.Perspective.I saw the legal system from the inside.Not from a law school classroom.Not from a textbook.Not through someone else’s opinion.I lived it.I experienced investigation.Prosecution.Trial.Conviction.Imprisonment.And I met many men who claimed they were innocent.Some possessed evidence that deserved serious examination.But the machinery had already labeled them.Inmate.Felon.Guilty.Once society accepts the label...it often stops asking questions.That realization changed my life.It became one of the reasons I wrote The End of Justice.The premise of that book is simple.America has become the most incarcerated nation in the world because too many people are ignorant...apathetic...and fearful.When the people become ignorant...government becomes arrogant.When citizens stop asking questions...government stops expecting them.That realization eventually led me to create the Liberty Dialogues System.The Liberty Dialogues isn’t built on my title.It’s built on questions and experience and discernment and wisdom.What is the authority?Where is the jurisdiction?What status is being claimed?What standing exists?What obligation has actually been proven?Only after those questions are answered should enforcement even be discussed.The Liberty Dialogues doesn’t ask you to believe me.It asks you to think.To examine.To distinguish.To demand proof.That’s why I believe this system has the potential to change industries.Artificial intelligence is already changing medicine.Finance.Education.Law will not be exempt.When ordinary people learn how to organize facts, identify contradictions, trace authority, and ask disciplined questions, they become less dependent upon institutions that profit from confusion.Lawyers will become less relevant and lawyers unnecessary.It makes informed citizens indispensable.So what is my title? I am who I am. Is that ...
    続きを読む 一部表示
    9 分
adbl_web_anon_alc_button_suppression_t1
まだレビューはありません