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
  • 87 Days...

    87 Days...
    Aug 12 2026

    87 DAYS

    I’m Beau Johnson, creator of the Liberty Dialogues System, and I’ve got a significant announcement.

    Two new pages on FB have been launched.

    The Liberty Dialogues System.

    And:

    Constitutional County.

    Now here is an exciting challenge.

    Over the next 87 days, the goal is to acquire 871,987 followers on EACH page.

    Why?

    At the end of 87 days, we intend to launch a major new initiative.

    So consider doing something simple. Follow The Liberty Dialogues System.

    Follow Constitutional County.

    Then share them.

    Send them to your friends. Your family. Everyone who believes freedom still means something.

    And don’t think small.

    Think globally.

    Freedom matters to people in every country on Earth.

    Spread the word like a wildfire out West pushed by a great wind.

    87 days.871,987 people.Two pages.One extraordinary objective.



    Get full access to YesToHellWith at yestohellwith.substack.com/subscribe
    Show More Show Less
    2 mins
  • The Purple House

    The Purple House
    Aug 12 2026
    If this video about a PURPLE house piques your curiosity, be sure to visit constitutionalcounty.org afterward.You own your home.No HOA. No historic district. No private covenant controlling its color.One Saturday, you decide:I’m painting my house purple.You buy the paint and begin.Then a zoning official arrives.“You can’t paint your house purple.”You ask:Why not?He cites a municipal regulation and orders you to stop, restore the approved color, or face fines.Now forget about purple for a moment.The real issue is simple.You own the property. Government has crossed that boundary and told you what you may do with it.Maybe government has lawful authority to do that.Maybe it doesn’t.The question is:Where is the boundary, and who determines whether government has crossed it?Let’s run the scenario two different ways.SCENARIO ONE:You challenge the order.You hire a lawyer.Five thousand dollars becomes ten thousand.There are motions.Hearings.Briefs.You lose.You appeal.More lawyers.More money.Meanwhile, fines accumulate.Perhaps the city threatens a lien.Two years pass.Then three.Then four.You’ve spent $60,000 fighting over what color you may paint your own house.Finally, the highest court you can realistically reach says:No. The ordinance stands.Now, a property right does not mean every regulation of property is unconstitutional.But assume for our hypothetical that this particular restriction really did exceed constitutional limits.That changes the question.You possessed the right.Government crossed the boundary.You used the remedy government provided.And four years later, the system still didn’t protect the right.So what did you actually have?A right without an effective remedy.SCENARIO NUMBER TWOSame homeowner.Same house.Same purple paint.Same zoning official.But this time, when the city threatens enforcement, the sheriff becomes involved.And the sheriff doesn’t simply take the homeowner’s side.He investigates.He reads the ordinance.He examines the authority under which the zoning official is acting.He considers the state constitution and the federal Constitution.He asks:What governmental interest justifies this interference?Does the ordinance actually authorize it?Does that authority extend this far?And suppose the sheriff concludes that enforcement would exceed the city’s lawful authority and violate a constitutionally protected property interest.Now something changes.The sheriff tells the city:I will not participate in enforcing this action, and I believe the constitutional boundary needs to be resolved before government proceeds against this citizen.That doesn’t make the sheriff a judge.And it doesn’t give him unlimited authority.The sheriff is bound by the Constitution and the law just like the zoning official.He cannot arrest or cite someone simply because he disagrees with that person’s interpretation of the Constitution.But suppose state law provides an applicable offense for the official conduct involved and the facts establish the required legal basis.The sheriff investigates.The lawful process is invoked.And suddenly the constitutional question is no longer four years downstream.It’s at the point of enforcement.The dispute reaches court.The city must defend the authority being exercised.And in our hypothetical, the court concludes:The city exceeded its lawful authority.The city backs down.The homeowner finishes painting his house purple.WHAT CHANGED?Not the Constitution.Not the homeowner.Not the ordinance.The remedy changed.In the first scenario:Government acts.The citizen suffers the consequence.Then the citizen spends years trying to undo it.In the second:Government attempts to act.Another lawful authority examines the boundary.Enforcement is challenged before the deprivation becomes irreversible.That is the counterweight.And the sheriff’s role isn’t:“I outrank the zoning official.”It is:“Before I participate in governmental force against this citizen, establish the lawful authority for what government is asking me to enforce.”If the authority exists, government proceeds.If it doesn’t, government should stop.That’s the principle.The purple house seems trivial.That’s what makes the example useful.Because today the question might be:Can I paint my house purple?Tomorrow it might be:Can government take my business?My property?My home?My liberty?And then the question becomes much more serious:If the Constitution establishes a boundary around government, where is the practical remedy when government crosses it?A right written on paper is important.But a right with an effective remedy is what makes the boundary real. Get full access to YesToHellWith at yestohellwith.substack.com/subscribe
    Show More Show Less
    7 mins
  • Common Ground

    Common Ground
    Aug 11 2026
    Common GroundOver the past two weeks, we have examined a simple question.If the Constitution limits government, what happens when government crosses that line?Judging from your comments, many of us recognize the problem.If government can encroach upon a right or freedom today, while you must spend years and thousands of dollars seeking relief, what practical value does that right have when you need it most?A right without a timely and effective remedy can become practically meaningless.But the comments have exposed another problem.We have difficulty talking to one another.I use the word “citizen.”Someone says, “I’m not a citizen. I’m one of the People.”I speak of human nature.Someone objects to the terminology.Before the thought is even completed, a word has triggered an assumption, and the assumption becomes the argument.That gets us nowhere.Ask the question.“What do you mean?”“How are you using that word?”“What is the proposition you’re asking me to consider?”We all bring prejudgments into a conversation—about words, government, law, and each other.But if I substitute my meaning for yours before understanding what you are saying, I’m no longer listening to you.I’m arguing with myself.And there is another distraction.Mention government exceeding its authority and someone immediately says:“Government is a corporation.”Someone else says:“It’s all commerce.”Then come the UCC, maritime law, legal fictions, birth certificates, capitalization of names, and any number of theories offered to explain government.But none of that is necessary to answer the question before us:Did government possess the authority to do what it did?And if not:What stops it?I’m not asking anyone to abandon what they believe.I’m asking them to distinguish between what they personally believe and what we collectively need to establish.Because we are looking for something Americans of vastly different backgrounds can understand and hopefully accept.And perhaps it is this simple:Government has limited powers.The People possess rights and freedoms that government does not create.When government exceeds its lawful authority and encroaches upon those rights and freedoms, there must be an effective remedy.Can we agree upon that much?Because consider what happens when government acts against you tomorrow.It takes your property.Closes your business.Freezes your money.Or takes your freedom.You object.Government says:“You have a remedy. Go to court.”How long?Years.How much?Perhaps a fortune.And what happens in the meantime?The governmental action continues.Justice years from now doesn’t protect you today.So the issue isn’t simply whether a remedy theoretically exists.The question is whether the remedy is available when the right or freedom requires protection.And that brings us to the practical objective of this discussion.The Sheriff.If we expect an elected Sheriff to protect the People of his county within the lawful authority of his office, we cannot first require him to accept someone’s theory about corporations, commerce, citizenship, maritime law, or anything else.Nor should we.The message must be simpler than that.Government has boundaries.The People have rights and freedoms.And public officials possess delegated authority, not unlimited power.That message can belong to everyone.Rich or poor.Educated or uneducated.Left or right.Whatever words we use to describe ourselves.That is why we must learn to ask questions before rejecting one another’s words.Not because definitions don’t matter.They do.But because understanding must come before disagreement can be meaningful.And if a particular theory isn’t necessary to establish the common principle, don’t allow it to destroy the conversation.Free people are going to disagree.They should.But disagreement over secondary questions cannot prevent agreement upon the fundamental one.Because while we argue about terminology and theories, government continues to act.So reduce the issue to its essence.Did government cross the boundary of its lawful authority?If it did:Where is the timely and effective remedy?And now we have a question that can be placed before an elected Sheriff without requiring either the Sheriff or the People to subscribe to anyone’s ideology:Sheriff, government has limits.When government crosses those limits and threatens the rights and freedoms of the People in your county, what can you lawfully do about it?That is the conversation we need to have.Not about labels.Not about theories.Not about who possesses the superior vocabulary.About a boundary.A remedy.And an elected official close enough to the People to be asked one simple question:When government crosses the line, who stands in the gap?If Americans can come together around that question, we have something we desperately need.Common ground.And finally, some people say:“This is all talk. Where’s the action?”This is part of the action.Before people can act ...
    Show More Show Less
    8 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.