Memorial Day: Something To Remember

Memorial Day:  Something To Remember

By KrisAnne Hall, JD


Our contemporary American experience seems often Orwellian.  We have a Congress that denies our Rights in the name of security.  We have a judiciary that often denies the Constitution and violates it by asserting a power to make law.  Many patriots have expended a great deal of energy to see our Liberty protected and America’s greatness restored. We are all aware that there are still many struggles ahead and mountains yet to be conquered.  But let us be reminded of a hope that is rooted firmly in the original American experience that makes our land so exceptional.

Our history is rich with men and women who have surrendered all so that many could live in the greatest place the world has ever known. For over 700 years before the Declaration of Independence, men and women were learning the lessons that would be taught to our founders. Lessons that would infuse our founders with the courage and hope that would build this exceptional land.

Patrick Henry said, “I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know no way to judge the future but by the past.” He was letting us know that his knowledge of those last 700 years, were the very reason he knew how this fight would turn out. He knew that every time men and women understood the value of Liberty and pledged all to protect it, they were always victorious. These guarantees of history must have raced through Henry’s head; 1100 Charter of Liberties, Magna Carta, 1628 Petition of Right, 1641 Grand Remonstrance, and his very own Bill of Rights of 1689. These were battles fought in the name of Liberty and he knew that victory was a guarantee. This is our history. This is our guarantee. This is our victory!

We have so much to be thankful for.  Let us not forget that Liberty is a gift that was purchased for us with great sacrifice. Among the many things we have to be thankful for, we must be eternally grateful for the wisdom of men and women that understood that Liberty was a gift from God and that all God’s gifts are worth our every sacrifice.  John Adams, in a letter to Abigail in 1777 expressed this sacrifice.

“Posterity ! you will never know how much it cost the present generation to preserve your freedom! I hope you will make a good use of it If you do not, I shall repent in Heaven that I ever took half the pains to preserve it.”

We must honor this sacrifice by honoring their memory and continuing their efforts.  Too often I see the revisionism of our history in an effort to demean these men and women with the purpose of destroying our Constitution.  We do not properly respect their efforts by allowing these lies to be taught to our sons and daughters.  We must teach the truth.  We owe it to them.  We owe it to our children.  It is our hope.

I am not trying to give the founders some divine status or even suppose them a level of perfection that they did not have. We must understand that our Liberty was not founded upon people, but upon principles. The people that gave us our exceptional American principles were flawed vessels just like you and me. However, the really amazing part of this history is that flawed men understood that the foundation of an enduring union must be Liberty moored in morality. Consider these words by Alexander Hamilton:

“Equal pains have been taken to deprave the morals as to extinguish the religion of the country [France], if indeed morality in a community can be separated from religion…The pious and moral weep over these scenes as a sepulcher destined to entomb all they revere and esteem.

The politician who loves liberty sees them with regret as a gulf that may swallow up the liberty to which he is devoted. He knows that morality overthrown (and morality must fall with religion), the terrors of despotism can alone curb the impetuous passions of man, and confine him within the bounds of social duty.” The Stand, No. III (April 7, 1798)

Our founders knew that Liberty is a combination of two equally important parts – it is FREEDOM under the constraints of MORALITY. Liberty cannot survive where there is pure freedom. Pure freedom gives man the right to do whatever is right in his own mind: cheat, lie, rob, murder. Pure freedom is anarchy. At the same time, Liberty cannot survive with moral law alone. Moral law not mingled with freedom is theocracy. Theocracy in the hands of men is tyranny in the name of religion. Our founders attempted give us this balance and secure the blessings of liberty for us in our founding documents. If we abandon our history, we abandon our founding documents and disregard our moral foundations, then liberty is in peril.

Thomas Jefferson gave us this warning, “Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that is justice cannot sleep forever.”

While Benjamin Franklin warned America’s founders directly:

“In the beginning of the Contest with Great Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayer in this room for Divine protection…. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of Superintending Providence in our favor…have we now forgotten that powerful Friend? or do we imagine we no longer need His assistance?…. God Governs in the affairs of  men And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?”

Patrick Henry said “Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us.”

Did these brave men and women live without fear? Hardly so! Mercy Otis Warren articulated this dilemma so well.

“I have my fears. Yet, notwithstanding the complicated difficulties that rise before us, there is no receding; May nothing ever check that glorious spirit if freedom which inspires the patriot in the cabinet and the hero in the field, with courage to maintain their righteous cause, and to endeavor to transmit the claim to posterity, even if they must seal the rich conveyance to their children with their own blood.”

They knew that bravery was not the absence of fear, but doing what you must in the face of fear. They knew that the battle for Liberty, as Mercy called it, was a righteous cause. Knowing the source of her courage is the key to understanding her resolve. Mercy wrote a letter to her friend Mrs. Macauley in 1774, from this letter we can know the source of her strength. She said they were “ready to sacrifice their devoted lives to preserve inviolate, and to convey to their children the inherent rights of men, conferred on all by the God of nature.”

The key to victory, the key to the courage that brings victory is not simply fighting the fight, but KNOWING we fight a righteous battle for the One who gave us that Liberty. Our founders were in a position to pledge their lives, the lives of their families, everything that they had because they were firmly rooted in ALL the assurances of Liberty. Our founders knew that Liberty is a gift from God, and those that stand for God’s gifts will be victorious through God’s promises. They firmly believed that living in tyranny was worse than dying for Liberty. They knew that through their faith in Christ, their rewards in standing for God’s gift would be certain, whether on the battle field or in Heaven.

As Thomas Paine so eloquently put it, “THESE are the times that try men’s souls.” But Paine’s full statement gives a richness that is lost with the initial quote alone. Payne continues to tell us who will last in this battle and WHY they will last.

“The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing (sic) its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated.”

If we want to have the resolve that Mercy Otis-Warren spoke of, the confidence that Patrick Henry displayed, we must KNOW what Thomas Jefferson knew so we will not become the sunshine patriots Thomas Paine condemns. We must know Liberty is a gift from God.  We must know this Gift, although comes at a high price, is worth fighting for because God is with us. If God be with us, who can be against us?

As an exceptional union built upon exceptional principles, we cannot deny that we are built with a foundational understanding of an exceptional God. Thomas Jefferson reminds us that, “We are not in a world ungoverned by the laws and the power of a Superior Agent. Our efforts are in His hand, and directed by it; and He will give them their effect in His own time.”

Because of our historical understanding that America was built on the principles of freedom and morality, America has always been the haven of rest when tyrants oppress their own. She is the vineyard of innovation and opportunity. We are a people that open their arms to the tired, to the poor, to the oppressed, to the huddled masses yearning to breathe free. No other people can claim this legacy; no other people have this birthright. This is the shining city upon a hill, and we cannot hide our light under a bush.

The focus of our education should not be on the flaws of the men who gave us our Constitution, but on the exceptional principles that they gave us. We have an exceptional union where “all men are created equal and endowed with certain inalienable rights.” A land birthed by the principle that the power of the government is to be held BY the people and not where the government holds power OVER the people. A country that believes the principle that says all are free to worship according to the dictates of their conscience, and all are equally free, “Jews, Turks, pagans, AND Christians.”  We have prospered based on the principle that ideas and hard work open the door to prosperity regardless of bloodline, skin color or social status. A land that has remained free based on the principle that liberties remain secure by maintaining the right to defend self, property, and Liberty.

In the profound words of Daniel Webster, “Is our Constitution worth preserving? Guard it as you would guard the seat of your life, guard it not only against the open blows of violence, but also against that spirit of change…Miracles do not cluster. That which has happened but once in six thousand years, cannot be expected to happen often. Such a government, once destroyed, would have a void to be filled, perhaps for centuries, with revolution and tumult, riot and despotism.”  An Anniversary Address by Daniel Webster July 4th 1806

Let us maintain a true focus on what is important. In this day it is so popular to denigrate America for every little flaw. Why not take back a bit of American Exceptionalism? Why not embrace what makes us different from every other place on the globe? America is exceptional because we are built on exceptional principles. Principles of Liberty, freedom, morality, and equality as derived from our Creator.  And these principles are STILL WORTH FIGHTING FOR!

Watching the Whittling Away of the 1st Amendment

Liberty is very rarely lost over night.  It is almost always done in slow degrees.  Will Americans allow this important Liberty be diminished in the name of politics, personality, and political parties?

Alternatively you can listen to this edition of the “KrisAnne Hall Show’ on YouTube.

Donald Trump, Twitter, & The First Amendment

Donald Trump, Twitter, & The First Amendment

By KrisAnne Hall, JD


President Trump has been blocking people from his @realDonaldTrump account.  A federal judge says Trump is violating the First Amendment.  Is the Right to freedom of speech being violated by Trump through his actions on Twitter.  The answer to this question requires a two step process.

First, Twitter is a private forum, run by a private company.  Something only becomes a violation of Rights when the government is the offender.  People do not have their Rights violated when Twitter, as a private company, censors and blocks persons from their forum.  Private businesses still retain the right to refuse to do business with customers, regardless of the confusion created by the recent issues with photographers and cake bakers.  Additionally, people do not have their Rights violated when they are blocked on Twitter by another private individual.  The principle is: No government actor, no violations of Rights.

But this is not a question of Twitter blocking customers.  This is a question of the president of the United States, a government actor, blocking discussion from his Twitter feed.  So the question is Donald Trump a private citizen or a government actor?

The argument could be made that the @realDonaldTrump account is Trump’s personal account and as a private account maintained by a private citizen, people being blocked do not have their Rights being violated.  However that argument fails the moment Donald Trump voluntarily discusses “presidential business” on this “private” account.  Trump transforms his private account into the account of a government agent through his own actions whenever he tweets about his affairs and opinions as president.  Since Donald Trump is president he is a government agent.  Since Trump uses his Twitter account to discuss presidential business the account is not private, it becomes a public forum.  Therefore, those blocked by Trump on his @realDonaldTrump account are having their voice silenced by a government actor regarding public affairs.  This is a clear violation of the Right to freedom of speech.

To allow a government agent to conduct public business, yet hide behind the claim of a “private” account literally negates the entire purpose of the First Amendment: to be able to openly and publicly criticize those in office in what ever forum is available (Freedom of Press).  Trump chooses the forum of Twitter to conduct public business, so he must accept that forum for its praise and criticism.

The quick fix for Mr. Trump is to stop using the @realDonaldTrump account to discuss public business and reserve that account for truly private matters.  He must confine the presidential conversations to the @POTUS account.  That way he may maintain control over his truly private account and leave government business to the government account.


State Power over Sports Gambling is Not the Same State Power Over Aliens and This is Why

State Power over Sports Gambling is Not the Same State Power Over Aliens and This is Why

By KrisAnne Hall, JD

“To assert that the two are the same, undermines the authority of the Constitution itself and has the potential to create the very crisis the creators of the Constitution were attempting to avoid.”

The supreme Court recently rendered an opinion in the case Murphy v NCAA regarding the State’s ability to legalize sports gambling.  The majority Court opined that the Tenth Amendment made The Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA) unconstitutional thereby taking the stance that the States were not only not bound by this federal law, but that the States could indeed, pass legislation to legalize sports gambling within their State.  (To better understand this particular opinion, please read this explanation.)  There are many, from Judges to media pundits, who now profess that this opinion regarding State’s power and sports gambling will also set a precedent to justify several States’ actions to ignore federal laws regarding naturalization.  I would not even be surprised if some federal judges attempted to use this argument to render certain federal laws regarding naturalization void.  However, this is not the conclusion that can be drawn if we are to follow the Constitution and the terms of this contract that binds the States into the American Union.

1. Controlling Law is the Constitution Not Precedent

The controlling law in this matter, first and foremost, is not precedent, but the Constitution itself.  We know through Article 6 clause 2 of the Constitution (the Supremacy Clause) that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land.  We also know from this clause that only the laws made by Congress that are within compliance with the Constitution are the Supreme Law of the Land.  Several drafters of this Constitution spoke on this matter making the conditional nature of federal laws even more clear.

“…the power of the Constitution predominates.  Anything, therefore, that shall be enacted by Congress contrary thereto, will not have the force of law.” James Wilson 1787 Ratification Debates

“No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.”  Alexander Hamilton, Fed #78

The Supremacy Clause itself declares that laws made by Congress that are inconsistent with the powers specifically enumerated to the federal government are not binding upon the States.  Within the Bill of Rights is the Tenth Amendment which serves as further clarification of this separation of powers between the States and the federal government.

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Tenth Amendment (emphasis mine)

2. Delegation of Powers Makes the Legal Distinction

It is within the distinct separation of powers between the States and federal government that the Constitutional difference exists between States legislating sports gambling and States denying the Uniformed Rules of Naturalization.  Simply put, the power to establish Uniform Rule of Naturalization is a power delegated to the federal government through the States’ Constitutional compact, the power to make laws regarding gambling is not. (NOTE: The assertion that the federal government is empowered to regulate gambling through the “commerce clause” is an errant expansion of federal power through “interpretation” not intended by the drafters. LINK)

The authority to make the Uniform Rule of Naturalization was delegated to Congress through Article 1 section 8 clause 4 of the Constitution:

“To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;”

The purpose of this power being delegated was to correct serious problems that had arisen through the Articles of Confederation due to “the dissimilarity in the rules of naturalization” that James Madison identifies in Federalist #42 as “a fault in our system.”  Madison appropriately defines “naturalization” as the classification that bestows upon an alien “all privileges and immunities of free citizens.”  In the previous Constitution, the definitions of citizenship were left to the independent States creating not only confusion amongst the States, but as Madison asserts, a potential for “embarrassment” and “chaos.”  When the States established their own standard of naturalization, creating different standards across the Union, an alien could enjoy the benefits of citizenship in one State but not others.  So an alien who enjoys the benefits of citizenship in one State could bring the legal claim to demand the benefits of citizenship in other States who have different standards.  Madison said this claim would establish that “the law of one State be preposterously rendered paramount to the law of another, within the jurisdiction of another.”  Those who ratified the Constitution considered this to be a problem too serious to not be provided against.  Therefore, the power to establish a Uniform Rule of Naturalization was established; to ensure a single standard from State to State for aliens to become citizens and enjoy the benefits of citizenship.

3. States who are a part of the Union must recognize the authority established by the Constitution

Every State that enters the Union under this Constitution, must agree that this power is delegated to the federal government and must admit they do not have the authority to alter those standards.  If they do so, they are violating the terms of the Constitution they agreed to when entering the Union and are breaking their fiduciary duty to the other States.

The federal exercise of the power over the standards for naturalization is consistent with the Constitution, by the terms of the Constitution it is the Supreme Law of the Land, and the States are bound by it.  Any alteration of this standard is not only contrary to the intent of the Constitution, but also contrary to the very language itself.  Cities and States who are allowing aliens to vote, to hold government office or to participate in tax payer benefits and welfare are violating the terms of the Constitution and their duty to the other States.

4. Gambling and Naturalization are not Constitutionally the same

The supreme Court was correct in its opinion to say that PASPA does not control the States.  However, to claim Murphy v NCAA creates a precedent that will allow States to create their own standards for applying the benefits of citizenship to aliens is errant and dangerous.  If the courts suggest that a State can create its own standard for citizenship, then what will prevent a State from refusing citizenship status to person based upon their religion, skin color, or political ideology, and then subsequently demanding that standard upon other States?

Finally, as Madison explains in Fed #42, “If we are to be one nation in any respect, it clearly ought to be in respect to other nations.”  The entire purpose behind the States creating the federal government is to be a representative on behalf of the States in foreign affairs.  The manner in which an alien becomes a citizen is just as much a foreign affair as a domestic one.  To have uniformity in that manner not only makes for better foreign relations, but will also, as Madison again explains, foster “the harmony and proper intercourse among the States.”

For the State to create laws contrary to the Constitution is quite different from a State creating laws when the power has been reserved to the States.  That distinction is what the Tenth Amendment is all about.  Gambling is a power reserved to the States; Naturalization is a power delegated to the federal government.  To assert that the two are the same, undermines the authority of the Constitution itself and has the potential to create the very crisis the creators of the Constitution were attempting to avoid.


Liberals on Guns & DACA, Sports Gambling & the Constitution

KrisAnne enters into a discussion with Liberals about the Right to Keep & Bear Arms & DACA.  Then we get into the REAL conversation about what the supreme court said about Sports Gambling…NOT sanctuary cities.

Alternatively you can listen to “The KrisAnne Hall Show” on YouTube

Supreme Court Betting On College Sports

Supreme Court Betting on College Sports

By KrisAnne Hall, JD


In a baby step back toward protecting reserved State Powers, the Supreme Court on Monday overturned a twenty-five year old federal law called The Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA).  The Act was originally signed into law in 1992 to target organized markets for sports gambling.  This federal law was not a flat ban on sports-gambling schemes, but only a law that prohibited States from permitting sports gambling by State law.

In an opinion written by Justice Alito, the majority of the court decided this law was a violation of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution.  Alito says, “The legislative powers granted to Congress are sizeable, but they are not unlimited.  The Constitution confers on Congress not plenary legislative power but only certain enumerated powers.  Therefore, all other legislative power is reserved for the States, as the Tenth Amendment confirms.”  The Tenth Amendment limitation is referred to by the court as the “anti-commandeering doctrine.”

The people of New Jersey want to legalize sports gambling but PASPA makes it illegal for States to legalize any “sports gambling schemes.”  The people of New Jersey argued that this federal law infringed upon the State’s sovereign authority.  The State relied upon two cases; New York v. US (1992) and Printz v. US (1997) that struck down federal laws that imposed improper regulatory powers upon the States.  In Printz v. US the supreme Court used Federalist Papers 39 as support for their opinion in which James Madison explained:

“[T]he local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority, than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere. In this relation, then, the proposed government cannot be deemed a NATIONAL one; since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignty over all other objects.”

In these cases, the supreme Court recognized that there are separate and independent jurisdictions that exist within the two sovereign spheres of government; the State and the Federal.  When the power has not been delegated to the Federal that power remains in the State and outside of the Federal’s power to impose laws upon the State.  Following this same standard established by the Tenth Amendment in the Constitution, Justice Alito and the majority court recognized the State’s authority to regulate gambling lies within the sovereign realm of the state’s authority and that Congress directing state legislatures to prohibit sports gambling is not an enumerated power delegated by the Constitution to the federal government.

“The anti-commandeering doctrine may sound arcane, but it is simply the expression of a fundamental structural decision incorporated into the Constitution, i.e., the decision to withhold from Congress the power to issue orders directly to the States.”

It is refreshing to see the supreme Court return to this fundamental and essential truth; that the States are independent sovereigns and the federal government can only lawfully exercise powers that have been properly delegated.  This Court also recognized the constitutional principle of the sovereignty of the States in NFIB v. Sebelius when Chief Justice Roberts, writing the majority opinion said;

“In the typical case we look to the States to defend their prerogative by adopting “the simple expedient of not yielding” to federal blandishments when they do not want to embrace federal policy as their own.  The States are separate and independent sovereigns.  Sometimes they have to act like it.”

Although this is just a small step, Alito and the majority court may be steering the federal government back in the proper direction; one not only required by the Constitution but also by those who wrote it.  Alexander Hamilton makes this very clear in Federalist #78:

“There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void.  No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.”

Hamilton is explaining in this text that in order to for a federal law to be valid, it must not only comply with the text of the Constitution, it must also be consistent with the “tenor of the commission under which it is exercised.”  The Constitution requires adherence to the intent of the drafters as well as the words of the document.  In a display of adherence to this intent, Justice Alito quotes the Declaration of Independence and Madison’s Federalist #39 in his majority opinion to once again remind the people and their Congress that the States are sovereign.

“When the original States declared their independence, they claimed the powers inherent in sovereignty- in the words of the Declaration of Independence, the authority ‘to do all…Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do’…the States…retained ‘a residuary and inviolable sovereignty.’”

However, one point Alito seems to miss in his opinion is that the power to regulate gambling is not a power that is delegated AT ALL to the federal government.  He claims that “[c]ongress can regulate sports gambling directly, but if it elects not to do so, each State is free to act on its own.”  In this broad assertion of power, Alito actually sides with Justice Ginsberg and the dissent; that the federal government is realistically unlimited in its exercise of power.  Justice Thomas, in his concurring opinion, is the only Justice who denies this assertion of unlimited authority:

“Unlike the dissent I do “doubt” that Congress can prohibit sports gambling that does not cross state lines.”

Indeed, you may search the entire text, you may scour the writings of the drafters of this Constitution, but you will never find an authority delegated to the federal government to regulate such activity.  The assumed authority to do so comes from an interpretation of the Commerce Clause, in which the federal government stretches the meaning and application way beyond the “tenor of the commission” of the Constitution.  As Madison explained in 1792, during the Cod Fishery debate, the clauses within the Constitution are not powers delegated at all; they are merely explanations of “the purpose of the powers which are delegated.”  These clauses were never intended to be boilerplate blank checks written to Congress to create whatever law they could somehow justify.  Madison issues a very stern warning against using these clauses for that purpose.

“…for if the clause in question really authorizes Congress to do whatever they think fit… it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America.”

What Alito suggests is that the powers of the federal government are not limited by the Constitution, but by mere will enforced by interpretation of clauses.  Alito seems to only differ from the dissent in policy but not in principle.  However, as Alito does assert in his opinion, the Tenth Amendment is very clear; “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”  However, Alito’s final statements seem to assert that there are no reserved powers that rest within the States.  What he is really saying is that ALL POWER exists within the federal government and anything the feds choose not to use, is then “available” to be exercised by the States.  Alito’s claim then becomes the very manifestation of Madison’s warning, transmuting the limited nature of the federal government to one that is limited only by its own interpretation and desire for power.  Alito is not supporting a Constitutional Republic, but an unlimited federal kingdom that grants permissions to its vassal colonies – the states.

There should be no doubt as to the limited authority of the federal government.  There should be no doubt as to the reserved powers and sovereignty of the States.  Both are well documented within the Constitution and in the drafters’ explanations of the Constitution.  However, this fundamental and essential principle necessary for the existence of our Constitutional Republic still eludes our justices who claim the federal government can regulate the lives of the citizens in whatever manner they choose, as long as they can create an articulate justification and manipulate the Constitution, irrespective of the tenor in which it was written.  It is a step in the right direction to see the Court once again asserting the Sovereignty of the States.  However, what is the real difference between the majority and minority opinions when they both support an unlimited congressional authority over the people and left over power for the States?

DOJ Failures Haspel Hearing & Trump's Iran

Doing what we do best… giving you the Constitutional and Liberty perspective in a politically saturated world.

Alternatively you can listen to this edition of “The KrisAnne Hall Show” on YouTube

For an education in liberty worthy of the highest institutions of learning check out Liberty First University

Proving the Government Double Standard

What do the Mueller & Manafort investigations, public schools, Hillary Clinton, & the DOJ all have in common? They all work to provide evidence of the government double standard. Listen as we tie all of this together and then give you the solution to fix it all!

Alternatively you can listen to the KrisAnne Hall Show on YouTube