YesToHellWith

Where Does the Constitution Actually Protect the Citizen?

Part 2 in a series about Courts, the Constitution and Remedies

Welcome to YesToHellWith.com.

Yesterday, I posted a video asking a question that many people had never considered before.

If you’ve not seen that video, I encourage you to watch it first.

In that discussion, I explained that administrative tribunals and hearing officers generally do not resolve constitutional questions. Their responsibility is typically to administer the statutes, ordinances, or regulations that have been enacted by the governing body that created them.

That raises what I believe is a far more important constitutional question.

If the Constitution limits government...

And if the administrative tribunal says it cannot decide whether government has exceeded those constitutional limits...

Then where does the Constitution actually protect the citizen?

Think about that.

Not in theory.

Not in a civics class.

Not in a campaign speech.

In real life.

Let’s use a simple example.

Suppose I own a 1977 Ford Pinto.

I’m rebuilding the engine.

I park it on my front lawn while I work on it.

The city has adopted an ordinance prohibiting automobiles from being parked on front lawns.

A code enforcement officer arrives and issues me a citation.

Now I ask you something.

How is that fundamentally different from a family placing a children’s clubhouse in the front yard?

Or a mother setting up a table, pots, soil, and gardening equipment while planting flowers?

Or children spreading toys across the yard while they play?

Each of those activities involves placing personal property on private property.

Each occupies space on the front lawn.

Each reflects a homeowner using his or her property.

Yet one activity is prohibited by ordinance while the others are generally permitted.

Why?

What constitutional principle allows the government to distinguish one use from another?

More importantly...

Who decides whether that distinction exceeds the lawful limits of governmental authority?

Suppose I appear before the administrative hearing officer and say:

“I believe this ordinance exceeds the constitutional limits placed upon local government.”

The hearing officer responds:

“I’m here to enforce the ordinance.”

“I don’t decide constitutional questions.”

So now what?

The city enacted the ordinance.

The city enforces the ordinance.

The administrative tribunal applies the ordinance.

The citizen loses.

And the citizen is then told that if he wants constitutional review, he may have to continue through additional proceedings that could require months or years of litigation and significant expense.

Now stop for just a moment.

Think about what just happened.

The Constitution supposedly limits government.

Yet the first governmental institution the citizen encounters tells him it cannot determine whether those constitutional limits have been exceeded.

That is not an accusation.

It is an observation.

And it leads to what I believe is one of the most important constitutional questions of our time.

Where does the Constitution actually become a practical protection for the citizen?

Who is responsible for ensuring that government remains within the authority entrusted to it?

When does that protection occur?

How does an ordinary citizen obtain that protection without spending years and enormous financial resources simply trying to reach a tribunal willing to address the constitutional issue?

These are not political questions.

They are structural constitutional questions.

The Liberty Dialogues System teaches us not to begin with conclusions.

It teaches us to begin with questions.

So I’m not asking you today to accept my answer.

I’m asking you to think about the question.

If the Constitution truly limits government...

Where, when, and through what lawful mechanism are those limits actually enforced in a timely and practical way?

Because if the only practical answer is years of litigation after the citizen has already suffered the consequences...

Then perhaps we should all begin asking whether the constitutional structure is functioning as the Framers intended.

That is the conversation we’re going to continue in the next video.

May truth reign supreme.

Why Do Administrative Courts Often Say They Cannot Decide Constitutional Questions?

Welcome to YesToHellWith.com.

Have you ever noticed that when people appear before an administrative court or administrative hearing officer, they often begin arguing about the Constitution?

They cite the First Amendment.

The Fourth Amendment.

The Fifth Amendment.

The Sixth Amendment.

Or they simply declare that their constitutional rights have been violated.

Then, many times, the hearing officer responds by saying something like:

“I don’t have authority to decide constitutional questions.”

“Those issues are outside the scope of this proceeding.”

“I’m here only to apply the law.”

Why?

Does that mean the Constitution doesn’t apply?

Of course not.

The Constitution remains the supreme law of the land.

So what is really happening?

The answer begins with one of the most important questions in the Liberty Dialogues System.

Authority.

Every government official.

Every agency.

Every department.

Every tribunal.

Every court.

Possesses only the authority that has been entrusted to it.

That includes administrative tribunals.

Most administrative hearing officers are not asked to decide whether a statute is constitutional.

They are asked to administer the statute.

That is a very different responsibility.

Think about that for a moment.

If a licensing board exists to determine whether someone complied with licensing regulations...

Its responsibility is generally to administer those regulations.

If a zoning board exists to enforce zoning ordinances...

Its responsibility is generally to administer those ordinances.

If an administrative tribunal exists to hear workers’ compensation claims...

Its responsibility is generally to administer that statutory system.

Notice the pattern.

The tribunal has been entrusted with a particular function.

That function is usually defined by the statute that created it.

So when a hearing officer says,

“I don’t have authority to decide constitutional questions,”

that statement is often misunderstood.

Many people hear:

“The Constitution doesn’t matter.”

That is not necessarily what is being said.

The hearing officer may instead be saying:

“The legislature has not entrusted me with the authority to invalidate the statute I have been assigned to administer.”

Those are two completely different ideas.

And that distinction is important.

The Liberty Dialogues System teaches us not to stop there.

Instead, we continue asking questions.

If this tribunal cannot decide the constitutional issue...

Who can?

Must the constitutional question first be raised here in order to preserve it?

Must it later be presented to another tribunal or reviewing court?

Does another court possess authority that this tribunal does not?

Those are Liberty Dialogues questions.

Notice what we’re doing.

We’re not immediately arguing about constitutional rights.

We’re first asking about authority.

Who possesses it?

Who does not?

What authority has been entrusted to this tribunal?

What authority has been withheld?

Only after answering those questions do we move to jurisdiction.

Then status.

Then standing.

Then obligation.

Then enforcement.

That sequence is important.

Most people begin with enforcement.

They’ve received a citation.

They’ve received a notice.

Their license has been suspended.

Their benefits have been denied.

They’re already reacting.

The Liberty Dialogues begins much earlier.

It asks:

Who has the lawful authority to do what?

That question often changes the entire discussion.

Different tribunals have different responsibilities.

Different jurisdiction.

Different procedures.

Different limits.

The Liberty Dialogues does not assume that every tribunal can answer every question.

Instead, it seeks to understand the structure of the system before attempting to challenge it.

That understanding also affects the record you build.

If a tribunal lacks authority to decide a constitutional issue, that does not necessarily mean the issue disappears.

It may still become part of your record.

It may still become an issue for review later.

It may still become significant in another forum that has been entrusted with broader authority.

Again, that is why the Liberty Dialogues places such emphasis on establishing a superior record.

The record preserves the questions.

The record preserves the objections.

The record preserves the issues.

And ultimately, the record preserves your opportunity to continue pursuing a remedy where lawful authority exists to address it.

The Liberty Dialogues teaches us to understand government before attempting to persuade government.

It teaches us to understand authority before arguing jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction before status.

Status before standing.

Standing before obligation.

And obligation before enforcement.

That disciplined sequence changes the way you investigate.

It changes the way you prepare.

It changes the way you think.

And it changes the record you leave behind.

Because sometimes the most important constitutional question is not simply:

“What are my rights?”

The more important question is:

“Who has the lawful authority to decide this issue?”

Once you begin asking that question, you have already started thinking in the context of the Liberty Dialogues System.

May truth reign supreme.

THE SHERIFF’S DECLARATION TO THE PEOPLE

Today, before Almighty God and before the People of this County, I accept the Office of Sheriff with humility, gratitude, and a profound sense of duty.

I recognize that this office does not belong to me.

It belongs to the People.

I have taken a solemn oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

That oath is not ceremonial.

It is a covenant that binds me before God, before the People, and before the Constitutions I have sworn to support.

I recognize that those Constitutions exist to preserve the freedom of the People by limiting the authority entrusted to public office.

They do not create freedom.

They preserve it.

I therefore make this Declaration.

I recognize that every person is born free.

Freedom does not originate with legislatures.

Freedom does not originate with courts.

Freedom does not originate with public officials or public employees.

Freedom is inherent.

The People bear no burden to prove they are free.

Whenever a public official or public employee seeks to restrict the freedom of another, the burden rests upon that official to establish the lawful authority, lawful jurisdiction, and lawful process supporting that action.

I recognize that the Office of Sheriff exists for one enduring purpose:

To preserve the peace while protecting the freedom of the People.

Freedom is seldom lost all at once.

It is most often diminished whenever public officials or public employees exceed the lawful authority entrusted to them.

For that reason, vigilance is one of the highest duties of this office.

Whenever actions affect the life, freedom, or property of the People, I will carefully examine the authority asserted, the jurisdiction claimed, and the process employed before this office participates.

No title alone establishes authority.

No badge alone establishes authority.

No office alone establishes authority.

Authority must always remain accountable to law.

I recognize that the vast majority of public officials and public employees strive to serve honorably.

Those who faithfully discharge the authority entrusted to them deserve my respect, my cooperation, and my support.

Those who knowingly exceed that authority should expect this office to faithfully discharge its own responsibilities with equal integrity, professionalism, and resolve.

This office shall never be used to intimidate peaceful people.

It shall never be used to burden them unnecessarily.

It shall never forget that public authority exists to preserve freedom—not to replace it.

I recognize that strong families, secure property, and due process are indispensable to a free people.

These principles shall guide every decision made within this office.

I also recognize that threats to freedom may arise from enemies abroad and from abuses of authority at home.

My oath requires vigilance against both.

There will be times when convenience points one direction while duty points another.

My oath will not change because circumstances change.

My principles will not change because pressure is applied.

My duty will remain constant.

Therefore, I pledge to preserve the peace.

I pledge to defend the freedom of the People.

I pledge to protect life.

I pledge to protect property.

I pledge to faithfully exercise the authority entrusted to this office with humility, wisdom, restraint, integrity, and courage.

I pledge to cooperate with every public official and public employee who faithfully exercises the authority entrusted to them.

And whenever the freedom of the People is threatened through the unlawful exercise of authority, I will faithfully discharge every responsibility entrusted to this office according to my oath and according to law.

When my service as Sheriff comes to an end, I pray that this County—and through faithful service, this Country—will be more free than when the People entrusted this office to my care.

That is my promise.

That is my covenant.

That is my oath to the People.

May Almighty God grant me the wisdom to remain faithful to it.

And may truth reign supreme.

Throughout history, free people have preserved their freedom not merely by defending it, but by first understanding it.

The American Republic was founded upon enduring principles concerning the nature of man, the source of rights, the limits of public authority, and the proper relationship between the People and those entrusted with public office. These principles did not arise from convenience or political opinion. They formed the intellectual and moral foundation upon which the Republic was established.

Over time, many of these first principles have been forgotten, misunderstood, or replaced by assumptions that have altered the relationship between the People and public authority.

The purpose of these Thirty-One Questions is to return to those first principles.

They are not offered as accusations.

They are not offered as political statements.

They are not offered to condemn.

They are offered to encourage thoughtful reflection upon the truths that sustain a free country.

Each question invites the reader to examine a foundational principle of freedom. Each corresponding thesis expresses a conclusion drawn from that principle. Together, they establish the philosophical foundation for everything Americans and all people know to be true, and good and just. If the People and those entrusted with public office can once again agree upon these first principles, then the path toward preserving freedom becomes clearer, constitutional government becomes stronger, and the Republic itself becomes more secure.

The questions are therefore offered in the spirit of thoughtful inquiry, respectful dialogue, and a shared commitment to preserving a country where free people may continue to live in freedom.

THE THIRTY-ONE QUESTIONS OF A FREE PEOPLE

and Their Corresponding Theses

1. What is the natural condition of every person?

Thesis: Every person is born free.

2. From where do rights originate?

Thesis: Rights are inherent in every person.

3. Does government create rights?

Thesis: Rights neither originate with nor depend upon government.

4. What is the purpose of the Constitution?

Thesis: The Constitution exists to establish and limit public authority while protecting the freedom of the People.

5. Does the Constitution grant rights?

Thesis: The Constitution does not grant rights; it recognizes and protects them by limiting public authority.

6. Whom does the Constitution limit?

Thesis: The Constitution limits those entrusted with public authority—not the freedom of the People.

7. From where does all public authority originate?

Thesis: The People are the source of all delegated public authority.

8. Why do public offices exist?

Thesis: Every public office exists solely because the People created it.

9. How much authority does a public office possess?

Thesis: No public office possesses authority beyond that lawfully entrusted to it.

10. What accompanies every delegation of authority?

Thesis: Every delegation of authority carries an equal obligation of accountability.

11. For whom does public office exist?

Thesis: Public office exists to serve the People—not to govern their lives.

12. Upon whom rests the burden when freedom is restricted?

Thesis: Those who seek to restrict freedom bear the burden of justifying both their authority and their actions.

13. May authority simply be presumed?

Thesis: Authority must never be presumed.

14. What must exist before authority may lawfully be exercised?

Thesis: Jurisdiction must be established before authority may lawfully be exercised.

15. What protects the People from arbitrary exercises of authority?

Thesis: Due process protects every person from arbitrary exercises of authority.

16. What is the first duty of every public office?

Thesis: The first duty of every public office is the preservation of the freedom of the People.

17. What is the relationship between peace and freedom?

Thesis: Peace cannot long exist where freedom is absent.

18. Why is private property essential?

Thesis: Private property is indispensable to the preservation of freedom.

19. Why is the family indispensable?

Thesis: The family is the first institution of every free society.

20. How is freedom most often lost?

Thesis: Freedom is seldom lost all at once; it is usually diminished one unlawful exercise of authority at a time.

21. What happens whenever public officials exceed the authority entrusted to them?

Thesis: Whenever public officials or public employees exceed the lawful limits of their authority, freedom is diminished.

22. To whom is every public official accountable?

Thesis: Every public official remains personally responsible for the faithful exercise of the authority entrusted to the office.

23. What is the oath of office?

Thesis: The oath of office is a solemn covenant with the People.

24. To whom is the oath ultimately given?

Thesis: The oath binds every public official to faithfully support the Constitution before faithfully serving any person, agency, department, or institution.

25. What happens when an oath is ignored?

Thesis: Every violation of the oath diminishes public trust and weakens freedom.

26. Why does the Constitution speak of enemies both foreign and domestic?

Thesis: Freedom may be threatened by enemies from without and by abuses of authority from within.

27. Who bears responsibility for defending freedom?

Thesis: Every public official shares a duty to preserve the freedom of the People through the faithful exercise of the office entrusted to them.

28. Why does the Office of Sheriff exist?

Thesis: The Office of Sheriff exists to preserve the peace and faithfully discharge the duties entrusted to that office.

29. What qualities should govern every exercise of public authority?

Thesis: The faithful exercise of public office requires wisdom, restraint, courage, humility, integrity, and justice.

30. What preserves a free country?

Thesis: A country remains free only when both the People and their public officials remain faithful to these principles.

31. What responsibility does every generation bear?

Thesis: Every generation bears the responsibility of leaving the country more free than it found it.

The Sheriff, the Garden, and the Constitution

Perspective changes everything.

Imagine it is the year 2041.

You wake up and everything seems normal.

Your phone recognizes your face.

Your driver’s license, passport, bank account, medical records, and travel history are all connected through a single digital identity.

It feels convenient.

Until one morning your vehicle won’t start.

A message appears.

“Monthly fuel allocation exceeded.”

Later that day, you stop at the grocery store.

You place a package of steaks on the checkout counter.

The register rejects the purchase.

“Monthly meat quota exceeded.”

You decide to leave town for the weekend.

Your travel request is denied.

Not because you’ve committed a crime.

Not because you don’t have the money.

Simply because the system says no.

Now ask yourself...

Is this the society you want your children and grandchildren to inherit?

Most people would answer,

“Absolutely not.”

Then ask yourself another question.

When did it begin?

Did it begin with artificial intelligence?

Digital identification?

Carbon tracking?

Facial recognition?

Or did it begin years earlier...

When people accepted one small restriction after another because someone simply said,

“The rule applies to everyone.”

If you only examine today’s ordinance...

You’ll never recognize tomorrow’s society.

Now let me tell you a story.

Imagine a widow who has lived on her property for thirty years.

Every spring she plants a large vegetable garden.

It feeds her family, and she shares the extra food with elderly neighbors.

She harms no one.

Yet one afternoon a zoning official measures her garden and hands her a citation.

He tells her she needs a permit or she must reduce its size.

The widow asks a simple question.

“Why do I need permission to grow food on my own property?”

The official replies,

“Because the ordinance applies to everyone.”

Stop right there.

That single sentence reveals the real issue.

No one asked whether anyone had been injured.

No one asked whether the garden endangered the public.

No one asked whether government possessed constitutional authority to interfere with a peaceful activity.

Authority was simply presumed because an ordinance existed.

That is how liberty is lost.

Not all at once...

But one assumption at a time.

Unable to get an answer, the widow visits the sheriff.

She doesn’t ask him to abolish zoning.

She simply says,

“Sheriff, I’m being punished for growing food on my own property, and I haven’t harmed anyone.”

Now the sheriff faces a choice.

He can think like an administrator.

Or he can think like a constitutional officer.

If he thinks administratively, the matter is finished.

“The ordinance exists.”

“My job is to enforce it.”

But suppose he understands the office he holds.

He visits the property.

He investigates.

Then he asks four simple questions.

Who has been injured?

No one.

Whose property has been damaged?

No one.

Who has been defrauded?

No one.

Who has lost liberty?

The widow.

Then he asks the only question that matters.

If there is no injured party, no damaged property, no fraud, and no threat to public safety, by what constitutional authority may government punish this peaceful woman?

At that moment...

The conversation changes.

It is no longer about gardening.

It is about constitutional authority.

The sheriff contacts the zoning department.

The official repeats,

“The ordinance applies to everyone.”

The sheriff replies,

“That is precisely the question.

Does it?

Before my office participates in depriving this citizen of her liberty, I want to know what constitutional authority justifies this action.”

County attorneys become involved.

State officials become involved.

The newspapers criticize the sheriff.

Some accuse him of refusing to enforce the law.

But they misunderstand his position.

He is not refusing to enforce the law.

He is refusing to presume that every governmental command automatically possesses constitutional authority.

Those are not the same thing.

His oath was never to every ordinance.

His oath was to the Constitution.

If every regulation overrides constitutional liberty simply because it exists...

Then constitutional government has already failed.

Think about how we normally respond when government issues an order.

The citizen is expected to comply.

To hire an attorney.

To spend years proving why government should leave him alone.

That turns constitutional government upside down.

Government should bear the burden.

Government should explain why it possesses authority before interfering with the peaceful exercise of liberty.

That is the conversation almost nobody is having.

People ask,

“What law applies?”

Far fewer ask,

“Why does it apply?”

One question assumes authority.

The other requires authority to be demonstrated.

That difference changes everything.

Now replace the garden.

A father fishing with his son.

A rancher building a stock pond.

A homeowner collecting rainwater.

A family building a cabin.

The activity changes.

The principle does not.

If government may presume authority over every peaceful act unless the citizen proves otherwise...

Then liberty slowly becomes permission.

One permit.

One license.

One approval.

Until one day...

You cannot buy gasoline.

You cannot buy meat.

You cannot travel.

And people ask,

“How did we get here?”

The answer is simple.

We arrived one unquestioned assumption at a time.

Liberty is rarely lost in a single dramatic event.

It disappears when presumption replaces constitutional reasoning.

And it begins to return when citizens, sheriffs, governors, judges, and public officials ask one question before enforcing another restriction:

“By what constitutional authority does it apply?”

Because perspective changes everything.

If you only examine today’s ordinance...

You’ll never recognize tomorrow’s society.

Send an email to [email protected] and request Special Access.

The Conversation That Can Restore America.

It is July 28, 2026. May I suggest that if you do not listen to this entire video, you may be on a fool’s errand.

A few days ago, I posted a video about something I believe lies at the very heart of America’s problems.

It wasn’t about the Corporation of 1871.

It wasn’t about maritime law.

It wasn’t about the Strawman.

It wasn’t about the Crown of England, the Vatican, Social Security, redemption, or any of the countless theories that fill the Internet.

It was about something much more fundamental.

It was about the ability to have a conversation.

We no longer know how to converse. I believe there are a number of reasons why, but that is not the focus of this vide.

Suffice it to say, if we cannot discipline ourselves to understand another person’s actual point before introducing our own, how can we ever hope to restore a constitutional republic?

That is why I keep returning to the subject of conversation.

Because conversation is not the destination.

It is the bridge.

The bridge from confusion to understanding.

From understanding to agreement.

From agreement to action.

And from action to the restoration of rights and freedoms.

Now let me ask you a question.

What if I told you that you could stop studying almost every theory you’ve ever heard about that supposedly explains what is wrong with America... and still begin restoring freedom?

What if you never again had to debate the Corporation of 1871...

...the Strawman...

...maritime law...

...the Crown of England...

...the Vatican...

...redemption...

...or any of the hundreds of competing theories that consume countless hours, countless dollars, and cause endless arguments?

Now before someone rushes to the comment section and accuses me of saying those theories are true or false, you’ve already missed the point.

This isn’t a conversation about theories.

It’s a conversation about remedies.

I think most Americans know something is deeply wrong, just as most all countries believe and experience.

Government has grown far beyond what our founders envisioned.

Freedom seems to diminish year after year.

People instinctively know something is broken.

But then comes the next question.

Now what?

For decades, people have offered explanations.

Some are fascinating.

Some are well researched.

Some may even contain elements of truth.

But here’s my question.

What remedy have they produced for the average American?

The average American has a family.

A job.

Bills to pay.

Responsibilities.

He doesn’t have ten years to study competing theories.

He doesn’t have thousands of dollars to spend following one guru after another.

And even if he did...

I still ask that important question: What happens next?

Will a judge hear those theories?

Will an agency acknowledge them?

Will a county board make decisions because of them?

In most cases, the answer is no.

So perhaps we’ve been asking the wrong question.

Instead of asking,

“Which theory is correct?”

Perhaps we should ask,

“What solution can ordinary Americans understand, agree upon, and actually implement?”

History teaches us something remarkable.

No great movement ever required an entire nation to agree on every historical question.

It required enough people to agree on a few fundamental principles.

So let me ask you something.

Could a majority of citizens in your county agree that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land?

Could they agree that every public official voluntarily took an oath to support and defend it?

Could they agree that the Constitution exists primarily to limit governmental power—not to expand it?

Could they agree that constitutional limits exist to preserve the rights and freedoms of the people?

Could they agree that local officials should exercise the lawful authority entrusted to them to protect those constitutional limits instead of directing governmental power primarily against the citizens they serve?

Those are not complicated theories.

They are foundational principles.

And notice what just happened.

We didn’t have to settle a single debate about the Corporation of 1871.

We didn’t have to prove the Strawman.

We didn’t have to resolve maritime law.

We didn’t have to convince everyone about the Vatican or the Crown.

Because if a community agrees on these basic principles, the conversation changes from speculation to responsibility.

Now imagine a sheriff who understands the Constitution.

A sheriff who understands the limits of governmental authority.

A sheriff who understands that his oath is not ceremonial—it is a duty.

Imagine that sheriff asking every official who exercises governmental power in his county one simple question:

“What constitutional authority authorizes this action?”

Now imagine citizens supporting that effort.

Imagine them creating careful, documented records of their understanding, their objections, and their interactions with government—not to promote another theory, but to preserve evidence, encourage accountability, and help local officials distinguish between lawful authority and unsupported assumptions.

Now imagine county commissioners who understand these same principles.

School board members.

Legislators.

Clerks.

Judges.

One county begins asking one simple question:

“Where is the constitutional authority?”

Not,

“Which guru is right?”

Not,

“Which theory explains this?”

But,

“What lawful authority authorizes this exercise of power?”

Do you see how different that conversation becomes?

That is a conversation millions of Americans can have based upon shared principles.

It doesn’t require secret knowledge.

It doesn’t require ten years of research.

It doesn’t require everyone to agree on every historical theory.

It requires something much more important.

The willingness to converse.

The willingness to reason.

The willingness to agree upon first principles.

And that brings me back to the beginning.

If you cannot embrace a singular point and discuss it, you cannot possibly be part of any solution. As long as we are incapable of disciplined conversation, we will continue dividing ourselves into camps, each defending its own explanation while the nation continues drifting away from constitutional government. And this problem is exactly what those in government and each political faction want. They want us divided as much as possible. For we are much easier to conquer and subdue.

I am not interested in creating another camp. We have a hope to enter a conversation that restores natural rights and freedom at the local level.

And restoring the dignity we deserve as a free people.

A people capable of listening.

A people capable of reasoning.

A people capable of agreeing on a common cause.

Because if we cannot agree on first principles...

If we cannot communicate honestly...

If we cannot reason together...

Then no theory—no matter how compelling—will restore our rights or our freedoms.

But if enough Americans can unite around a handful of constitutional principles and expect every public official to honor the oath they voluntarily took...

Then we have something far more powerful than another theory.

We have a practical path forward.

One conversation.

One county.

One sheriff.

One community at a time.

Not with everyone agreeing about everything.

But with enough people agreeing about the things that matter most.

And I believe that conversation can restore America. IN the coming weeks and months, there will be some phenomenal developments that will only advance our common goal. So stay tuned. And as always, May truth reign supreme.

The Conversation We Never Had

Part 1

It’s July 27, 2026. Welcome to YesToHellWith.com.

A few days ago, I posted a video about the art of conversation.

Not about corporations, maritime law, birth certificates, or Masons.

It was about the ability to converse—or not.

Yet someone responded by accusing me of choosing “massive neglect in research and willful ignorance over truth.”

So let me get this straight.

As the author and narrator of the video, I suggested that people need to learn the art of conversation. A viewer immediately introduced an entirely different narrative and condemned me for failing to discuss it.

Not once did he address the actual content of my message.

And that is exactly why I made the video.

I think we’ve forgotten what a conversation actually is.

A conversation is two or more people examining the same proposition together. It begins with one question, follows the evidence wherever it leads, reaches a conclusion, and only then earns the right to move on.

That is how detectives investigate.

That is how scientists conduct research.

That is how serious people solve serious problems.

Unfortunately, many conversations never get that far.

Someone asks one question, and someone else answers a different one—not because they misunderstood, but because they would rather discuss their own subject.

That isn’t conversation.

It is substitution.

Imagine asking your physician why your shoulder hurts, and instead of examining your shoulder, he begins talking about insurance companies, pharmaceutical corporations, and the history of medicine.

Those subjects may deserve discussion.

But they are not your shoulder.

They belong to another conversation.

The same thing happens every day.

Someone asks about the constitutional responsibility of a sheriff.

Someone answers with corporations.

Someone asks about due process.

Someone answers with maritime law.

Someone asks about local government.

Someone answers with international banking.

Different subjects.

The same habit.

People are no longer building upon the conversation.

They’re replacing it.

That brings me to the response I recently received.

This person immediately launched into an entirely different narrative involving Crown corporations, U.S. Inc., Masons, birth certificates, commercial courts, banking, and numerous other subjects.

Now hear me carefully.

I am not saying those subjects are true.

I am not saying they are false.

That isn’t my point.

My point is simple.

They were not the conversation.

The discussion was about conversations—more specifically, the discipline required to remain focused on one proposition long enough to understand it.

So, with a touch of humor, because I had no desire to be disrespectful or condescending, I invited him to listen again to the first thirty or forty-five seconds of the video and simply asked whether he accepted my general point before introducing his own narrative.

That was an invitation to return to the original conversation.

Instead, this was his response:

“You’re sounding a lot like an insecure commie. ... You’re way off, pal, because you’re still very much under mind control and propaganda programming. You’re insecure ass slings destructive insults. I ping constructive criticism seeds intended to uplift from ignorance. ... Very, very strange that your perception of my comment is so queer.”

Now stop for just a moment.

What part of that response actually addresses my proposition—that conversation requires remaining focused on one question until it has been honestly examined?

None of it.

Instead, he questioned my intelligence, my motives, my understanding, and my character.

Ladies and gentlemen, that is not conversation.

It is abandoning one discussion, attempting to replace it with another, and criticizing the other person for refusing to leave the original subject.

Ironically, his response became one of the clearest demonstrations of the very point the video was making.

This should concern all of us.

If every conversation is interrupted by someone’s favorite subject, nothing is ever examined deeply enough to be understood. We simply move from one topic to another without resolving any of them.

That is not disciplined thinking.

It is intellectual distraction.

Now let me go one step further.

Throughout the freedom movement, I have watched people introduce increasingly broad explanations for why America is in its present condition.

Perhaps some of those explanations deserve careful examination.

Perhaps they don’t.

That isn’t my point.

My point is this:

Even if someone sincerely believes they have discovered the explanation for everything, that does not give them license to inject it into every conversation.

Every conversation has a purpose and a proposition, and it deserves the discipline of remaining there until it has been honestly examined.

Otherwise, nothing is ever resolved.

There is also a practical concern.

Suppose someone presents an all-encompassing explanation of government, law, finance, medicine, or society.

The next question should always be:

How does this help us resolve the specific question presently before us?

If the answer is that we must abandon the present conversation and begin an entirely different one, then the original question remains unanswered.

That is precisely what happened here.

The discussion was never allowed to mature because it was replaced almost immediately.

Conversation requires humility.

The humility to begin where the other person begins.

The discipline to understand the question before trying to answer it.

The patience to remain with that question until it has been honestly examined.

Only then do we move on.

Only then do we introduce another proposition.

That is how people learn.

That is how people reason.

That is how problems are solved.

My concern has never been whether someone possesses another explanation of the world.

My concern is whether we have lost the ability to converse.

Because without disciplined conversations, there can be no disciplined thinking.

Without disciplined thinking, there can be no practical solutions.

We simply keep talking past one another while convincing ourselves that we’re making progress.

So my invitation remains exactly what it was in the beginning.

When someone presents a proposition, resist the temptation to replace it with your own.

Understand it.

Examine it.

Follow the evidence.

Reach a conclusion.

Then—and only then—begin the next conversation.

If Americans can recover that one discipline, I believe we will not only have better conversations—we will begin finding better solutions.

May truth reign supreme.

There is something else that should concern us.

When someone cannot remain focused on a single proposition, abandons it almost immediately, substitutes an entirely different subject, and responds to a respectful invitation to return to the original discussion with personal insults, I believe it is entirely appropriate to call into question that person’s ability to reason.

I do not say that to insult him.

I say it because reasoning requires the discipline to remain with one proposition until it has been honestly examined.

His response demonstrated the opposite.

Visit www.beforeyoutrust.com